Attachment_A.pdf

LOWER MYAKKA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

MODEL UPDATE

Sarasota County | May 2024

19006-073-01 i May 2024 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 1-1

2 MODEL UPDATE ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Topographic Void Update ............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 New Developments Update .......................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Watershed Boundary Update ........................................................................ 2-5

2.3.1 Boundary conditions update ................................................................... 2-6

2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................. 2-8

3 FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION .......................................................................... 3-1

4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 FPLOS Criteria............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Supporting Data ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 FPLOS Methodology ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.3.1 Structures ............................................................................................ 4-2

4.3.2 Roadway.............................................................................................. 4-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location Map ...................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2 Grand Palm Phase 2A and 2B Developments DEM Update Features ............ 2-2

Figure 3 Windward Topographic Void DEM Comparison ......................................... 2-3

Figure 4 Sarasota County’s Watershed Model Boundaries ...................................... 2-7

Figure 5 Sarasota County Watershed Boundaries ................................................. 2-9

Figure 6 FPLOS-Deficient Structures Locations within the Watershed ...................... 4-3

Figure 7 FPLOS-Deficient Roadways ................................................................... 4-6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Topographic Void Developments ........................................................... 2-1

Table 2 Significant Developments in the Lower Myakka Watershed ....................... 2-3

Table 3 Comparison of Existing and Updated Model Elements ............................... 2-5

Table 4 Countywide Hydrologic and Hydraulic Features ....................................... 2-6

Table 5 Design Storm Rainfall Depths Using 24-Hour Duration and Type II

Florida-Modified Distribution ................................................................. 2-8

Table 6 Category II – Road Access Design Criteria .............................................. 4-1

Table 7 FPLOS-Deficient Structures Data ............................................................ 4-4

19006-073-01 ii May 2024 Table of Contents

Table 8 SARCO Street Class ............................................................................. 4-4

Table 9 Roadway FPLOS Summary .................................................................... 4-5

Table 10 Depth, Duration, and Extent of Roadway Not Meeting FPLOS Design

Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-0

19006-073-01 1-1 May 2024 Purpose and Objectives

1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Sarasota County has identified the importance of maintaining up-to-date watershed-scale models for planning purposes. The County has been using the Interconnected Channel and

Pond Routing software Version 3 (ICPR3) for stormwater modeling; however, Streamline

Technologies, Inc. discontinued support for ICPR3 in 2016. ICPR3 has been replaced by

ICPR Version 4 (ICPR4), and the County is converting its watershed models from ICPR3 to

ICPR4. The County contracted Jones Edmunds to convert four watershed models from

ICPR3 to ICPR4 and update the model for six watersheds under the Request for Professional

Services (RPS) #202061MN of Sarasota County Contract No. 2021-268. This Technical

Memorandum documents the model update for the Lower Myakka Watershed Management

Plan. Figure 1 illustrates the Lower Myakka Watershed location.

Jones Edmunds converted the Lower Myakka Watershed Model from ICPR3 to ICPR4 in prior tasks. This task consists of updating the watershed model to incorporate new developments that have occurred over the years using enhanced 2019 light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data obtained from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and addressing watershed boundary gaps and overlaps with adjacent watersheds.

19006-073-01 1-2 May 2024 Purpose and Objectives

Figure 1 Location Map

19006-073-01 2-1 May 2024 Model Update

2 MODEL UPDATE

The Lower Myakka Watershed Management Plan was last updated in 2017. For this update, the new 2019 LiDAR was used to refine the watershed boundaries, incorporate new developments, and address gaps and overlaps with adjacent watersheds.

2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC VOID UPDATE

The 2019 LiDAR reflects the new developments that have occurred as well as the more detailed and refined surface information that results from advanced topographic data capture technologies. Jones Edmunds reviewed the SWFWMD Environmental Resource

Permits (ERPs), 2019 LiDAR, and 2020 aerial imagery to identify developments that would have a significant impact on the watershed model. Some of the developments identified for updates are topographic voids in the 2019 LiDAR. Topographic voids are areas in the digital elevation model (DEM) that do not represent actual ground conditions based on aerial imagery review. After reviewing the areas of new development, we identified several topographic void areas that were large enough to cause notable inaccuracies in the model results and floodplain mapping if not addressed. We updated the DEM in these areas to reflect current conditions. Table 1 lists the developments where we conducted DEM updates.

Table 1 Topographic Void Developments

Project Name ERP Number

Grand Paradiso Phase 4B ERP_028393_012

Grand Palm Phase 2A ERP_024192_008

Grand Palm Phase 2B ERP_024192_018

Grand Palm Phase 1B ERP_042731_001

N. River Road Commercial Subdivision ERP_043386_001

Islandwalk Phase 7 ERP_028524_034

Islandwalk Phase 8 ERP_028524_035

Islandwalk Amenity Center ERP_028524_036

Islandwalk Phase 6 ERP_028524_037

For each area, Jones Edmunds georeferenced the applicable design drawings in a geographic information system (GIS). These drawings were used to digitize the ponds, building pads, parking lots, ditches, and other features that would assist in updating the terrain. Figure 2 illustrates the topographic features used to update the terrain for the

Grand Palm development. Figure 3 shows the before and after DEM for the Grand Palm

Phase 2A and 2B developments.

2.2 NEW DEVELOPMENTS UPDATE

Numerous developments have occurred in the watershed since the model was last updated in 2017. Table 2 lists the developments that have significant impacts on the watershed model and were included in the model update.

19006-073-01 2-2

Figure 2 Grand Palm Phase 2A and 2B Developments DEM Update Features

19006-073-01 2-3

Figure 3 Windward Topographic Void DEM Comparison

Table 2 Significant Developments in the Lower Myakka Watershed

Project Name ERP Permit Plans

Manatee Community College ERP_011757_001

Blackburn Creek ERP_024192_002

Grand Palm East-West Road ERP_024192_003

Grand Palm Phase 1B ERP_024192_004

Grand Palm Phase 1A ERP_024192_005

Grand Palm Phase 1C ERP_024192_006

Grand Palm Phase 1D ERP_024192_007

Grand Palm Phase 2A ERP_024192_008

Grand Palm Phase 1Aa ERP_024192_010

Grand Palm Phase 3A ERP_024192_011

Grand Palm Phase 3B ERP_024192_014

Grand Palm Phase 3C ERP_024192_015

Grand Palm East-West Road ERP_024192_017

Grand Palm Phase 2B ERP_024192_018

Grand Palm Phase 2C ERP_024192_019

St. Andrew Park Phase 4 ERP_024424_000

St. Andrew ERP_024424_002

St. Andrew East Phase No.5 ERP_024424_004

St. Andrew East Phase No.5 ERP_024424_005

Grand Paradiso Phase 1 ERP_028393_000

Grand Paradiso Phase 1 ERP_028393_001

Grand Paradiso Access Road ERP_028393_002

Before After

19006-073-01 2-4

Project Name ERP Permit Plans

Grand Paradiso Townhomes – 1 ERP_028393_005

Grand Paradiso Amenity Center Phase 2 ERP_028393_006

Grand Paradiso Phase 3 ERP_028393_009

Grand Paradiso Phase 4A ERP_028393_011

Grand Paradiso Phase 4B ERP_028393_012

Grand Paradiso Phase 6 ERP_028393_013

Grand Paradiso Phase 7 ERP_028393_014

Grand Paradiso Coach Homes – 2 ERP_028393_015

Grand Paradiso Phase 8 ERP_028393_017

Islandwalk Phase 1A ERP_028524_001

Islandwalk Phase 1C ERP_028524_004

Islandwalk ERP_028524_013

Islandwalk ERP_028524_014

Islandwalk Phases 2B–2E ERP_028524_015

Islandwalk Phases 2B–2E ERP_028524_017

Islandwalk ERP_028524_018

Islandwalk Phases 2B–2E ERP_028524_019

Islandwalk Phases 2F–2K ERP_028524_021

Islandwalk Phases 3A, 3B, and 3D-1 ERP_028524_024

Islandwalk Mass Grading ERP_028524_026

Islandwalk Phase 4 ERP_028524_028

Islandwalk Phase 5 ERP_028524_030

Islandwalk Phase 8 ERP_028524_035

Islandwalk Phase 6 ERP_028524_037

River Road and US 41 Intersection ERP_031462_002

Hospital Road Extension ERP_031475_000

Hospital Road Improvement ERP_031475_001

Hospital Road Extension ERP_031475_002

Hospital Road Extension Modification ERP_031475_004

West Villages Parkway Intersection ERP_031475_005

Oasis at West Villages Phase II ERP_032522_001

Atlanta Braves Spring Training Facility ERP_032522_005

Preto Boulevard ERP_032522_007

Carribbean Village ERP_041711_000

The Preserve ERP_042148_001

The Preserve Phase 2 ERP_042148_004

The Preserve Phase 3 ERP_042148_005

The Renaissance at West Villages ERP_042326_001

The Renaissance at West Villages ERP_042326_004

The Renaissance at West Villages ERP_042326_006

19006-073-01 2-5

Project Name ERP Permit Plans

The Renaissance at West Villages ERP_042326_007

Grand Palm Phase 1B (a) ERP_042731_001

Stoneybrook at Venice ERP_042923_000

N. River Road Commercial Subdivision ERP_043386_001

Jones Edmunds reviewed the development plans and compared the design elevations and topographic data to the LiDAR data. Each development was reviewed for:

▪ Drainage patterns and catchment delineations.

▪ Hydraulically significant structures.

▪ Elevations and profiles.

▪ Topography.

▪ Initial stages.

Based on our review, we re-delineated the model catchments, incorporated new or revised hydraulic structures, and parameterized the watershed model according to the design data.

In areas adjacent to the new developments, we updated curve numbers (CNs), impervious areas, times-of-concentrations (Tc), storage, overland weirs, and cross-sections.

Table 3 compares the model input data of the previous version of the model (existing model) and the updated version of the model.

Table 3 Comparison of Existing and Updated Model Elements

Model Element Existing Model (count) Updated Model (count)

Catchment 2,444 2,651

Node 2,614 2,981

Drop Structure 154 253

Pipe 500 690

Channel 299 289

Weir 3,917 4,115

Rating Curve 13 13

Watershed Area 64,573.835 acres 64,309.14 acres

2.3 WATERSHED BOUNDARY UPDATE

Since the previous update of the Lower Myakka Watershed Management Plan, updates to other adjacent watershed models in the County have occurred. Surrounding watersheds that have been updated included Upper Myakka, Dona Bay, Roberts Bay, and Lemon Bay.

These updates required that the boundaries along the Lower Myakka Watershed also be updated to be consistent with the adjacent watersheds to represent the interflow between the areas more accurately. Jones Edmunds revised the Lower Myakka Watershed boundary catchments to be consistent with the new LiDAR and the surrounding watersheds. The revisions included updating the storage, CNs, and Tc characteristics of the newly revised catchments.

19006-073-01 2-6

Jones Edmunds also ensured that the hydraulic connections were consistent between the watershed models (i.e., a conduit leaving one watershed is connected to the appropriate node of the adjacent watershed and the parameter data are identical).

2.3.1 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS UPDATE

Since the model for the Lower Myakka River Watershed as well as the adjacent watersheds are concurrently being updated along their boundaries, it is important that the boundary conditions reflect the changes within each watershed. Historically, developing the boundary conditions is an iterative process of updating the time-stage data of adjacent watersheds until both watershed models produce consistent results. The new ICPR4 engine has improved the computation time. This improvement, along with advancements in computer hardware and memory management made simulating countywide models feasible.

Therefore, Jones Edmunds merged all the County’s watershed geodatabases into one geodatabase. Figure 4 illustrates the extent of the countywide watershed model. Updates made during the merge include:

▪ Updating the basin delineation to eliminate gaps and overlaps.

▪ Renaming nodes and links to ensure no duplicates exist.

▪ Updating link features to ensure the polyline feature originates and terminates at nodes.

▪ Updating link spatial features to match the model inputs.

▪ Retaining the feature that has a credible source (i.e., survey, as-built, etc.) where the same feature had mismatched information.

Table 4 summarizes the hydrologic and hydraulic features within the Countywide geodatabase.

Table 4 Countywide Hydrologic and Hydraulic Features

Basins Nodes Rating Curves Pipes Channels Weirs Drop

Structures

17,320 20,083 123 9,549 3,425 26,928 3,248

Jones Edmunds created the countywide model using Streamline Technologies’ toolbox to export the model data from SWFWMD’s Geographic Watershed Information System

(GWIS) 2.1 geodatabase and import it into the ICPR4 model. We simulated the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year storm events using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type-II

Florida-Modified Rainfall Distribution. Table 5 shows the rainfall depths that we derived for these storms from rainfall isohyet maps provided in SWFWMD’s Guidelines and

Specifications (G&S) (2020).

19006-073-01 2-7

Figure 4 Sarasota County’s Watershed Model Boundaries

19006-073-01 2-8

Table 5 Design Storm Rainfall Depths Using 24-Hour Duration and Type II

Florida-Modified Distribution

Return Frequency

(years)

Rainfall Depth

(inches)

10 7.0

25 8.0

50 9.0

100 10.0

500 12.4

The County maintains 16 models; six models are coastal models that were developed with the intent to be merged with the adjacent riverine watersheds. Under the County’s guidance, Jones Edmunds combined the coastal basins into the appropriate watershed.

Figure 5 illustrates the resulting 10 watershed boundaries.

Using the countywide watershed model, Jones Edmunds extracted the Lower Myakka River

Watershed into a separate geodatabase. We updated the boundary nodes for Lower Myakka

River with the time-stage data from the countywide model, and we simulated the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year storm events for the Lower Myakka River Watershed. Jones

Edmunds verified that the results of the Lower Myakka River Watershed model were consistent with the overall countywide model.

2.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

Jones Edmunds develops watershed models using defined procedures for quality assurance.

Many tasks associated with model development and/or model conversion are captured in our Standard Operating Procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy. We also have many tools to aid in quality control of watershed products, including tools for parameterization, automated checks of model inputs, and floodplain delineation tools that meet Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards for floodplain mapping.

Jones Edmunds performed a quality control check of the input parameters to ensure that the information from the previous model was accurately represented. While checking the model inputs for reasonableness, we identified and corrected several issues in the previous model. These issues included:

▪ The maximum area in the stage-storage data exceeded the basin area.

▪ Initial stages were revised to eliminate unintended initial flows in pipes.

19006-073-01 2-9

Figure 5 Sarasota County Watershed Boundaries

19006-073-01 3-1 May 2024 Floodplain Delineation

3 FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION

Jones Edmunds developed level pool floodplains for the 100-year/24-hour design storm event. We delineated the floodplain extents using the 2019 SWFWMD enhanced ground-surface digital terrain model (DTM) and existing conditions model results. We determined the mapped floodplain water-surface elevations based on peak water-surface elevations at the model nodes.

In areas of natural land cover (e.g., forest), floodplain generation using high-resolution terrain data typically results in delineation of numerous small polygons or holes within polygons. The small polygons or holes are generated because of small variations in elevation sometimes caused by objects such as fallen trees, vegetation debris under the tree canopy, or other conditions where the DTM may not reflect the bare-earth elevation.

We excluded inundated areas less than 2,500 square feet (ft2) from the final delineations.

We also considered gaps in flooded areas less than 2,500 ft2 from final delineations negligible (potential artifacts of the DTM), which were filled for the final delineations.

19006-073-01 4-1 May 2024 Level of Service

4 LEVEL OF SERVICE

The FPLOS evaluation identifies the location and severity of the flooding problems within the watershed.

4.1 FPLOS CRITERIA

The FPLOS designations characterize flooding due to rainfall events, and can be categorized as either meeting or not meeting the following design conditions:

▪ Category I – Structures. Building finished-floor elevations are at or above the

100-year/24-hour flood elevation.

▪ Category II – Road Access. Roads are passable during flooding. Passable is defined as roadway flooding less than 6 inches deep at the outside edge of pavement during a specific design storm. Table 6 describes the road access design storm criteria by roadway classifications.

Table 6 Category II – Road Access Design Criteria

Road Category Storm Design

Evacuation Route >100-Year*

Arterial 100-Year

Collector 25-Year

Neighborhood 10-Year

* For Evacuation Route, 0 inches of flooding is allowed for the 100-year storm event.

The model results do not consider potential effects from tidal surges – tidal storm-surge analysis requires a separate type of modeling and is not part of this study.

4.2 SUPPORTING DATA

Jones Edmunds evaluated stormwater FPLOS for all subbasins in Lower Myakka River in accordance with the methods described in Sarasota County’s Unified Development Code

(UDC), Appendix C14 (Sarasota County Government, 2023). The supporting data used for evaluating the FPLOS include:

▪ 2019 Hydro-enhanced DEM raster.

▪ Inundation polygons.

▪ Inundation depth grid for the 100-, 25-, and 10-year/24-hour design storms.

▪ Sarasota County building footprint polygons.

▪ Sarasota County Streets.

▪ Sarasota County 2040 Future Thoroughfare Plan Roads.

▪ 2022 aerial imagery.

4.3 FPLOS METHODOLOGY

The following sections describe the FPLOS evaluation methodologies for roadways and structures.

19006-073-01 4-2

4.3.1 STRUCTURES

Jones Edmunds used the BuildingFootprints geodatabase provided by Sarasota County to identify structures with finished-floor elevations that are below the 100-year/24-hour flood elevation (i.e., FPLOS deficient). According to the metadata for the GIS features, the building footprints were derived using photogrammetry. The data were updated to include elevations. The elevation dataset was last updated in 2014. Since then, more building footprints were added to the data as recently as November 2022. However, the building footprints that were added did not have the finished floor elevations (FFE) attributed.

Jones Edmunds reviewed the available elevation data for the building footprints and found the information to be significantly inconsistent with the 2019 LiDAR. Therefore, we re-evaluated the FFE for the building footprints using the new LiDAR data to ensure more accuracy and consistency with the model information. The LiDAR was also used to parameterize the floodplain model.

New building footprints were also available that were generated from the 2019 LiDAR. The geometry of these footprints was not as refined as the previous dataset. However, they are more consistent with the new LiDAR. These footprints were used as the basis to determine the FFE from the new LiDAR and the results of the analysis were assigned to the older, but more refined, building footprints. The following steps summarize the procedures for determining the FFE for buildings.

1. Buffer the building footprints sourced from the 2019 LiDAR by 5 feet.

2. Determine the mean and maximum elevations in the buffer area.

3. Calculate the average of the mean and maximum elevations to estimate the FFE for buildings other than mobile or manufactured homes.

4. For mobile or manufactured homes, add 1 foot to estimate the FFE.

5. Assign the FFE to the more refined building footprints.

The above approach was compared with available survey data for reasonableness. FFE values were then compared to the flood-depth grid to determine whether the building meets the FPLOS conditions for Category I. Non-habitable structures were removed from the list of deficient structures.

The Lower Myakka River Watershed contains 11 deficient structures for the 100-year/

24-hour design storm. Figure 6 and Table 7 highlight the locations of the structures within the watershed that did not meet the FPLOS conditions for Category I.

4.3.2 ROADWAY

Jones Edmunds determined the Roadway FPLOS by evaluating the flood depth at each segment for the different classes of roads within the study area. Sarasota County maintains a GIS road centerlines dataset called Streets, which uses the Sarasota County (SARCO) street classifications. The roads are classified according to their function. The County also maintains a Thoroughfare polyline feature class that defines Evacuation Routes and a

Thoroughfare spreadsheet that contains all major road functional classes. Using the evacuation routes and the Thoroughfare spreadsheet, the Sarasota County streets were reclassified to the appropriate FPLOS roadway classifications consistent with the County’s

19006-073-01 4-3

UDC (Table 6). Table 8 describes how each street class was reclassified to be consistent with the FPLOS roadway classifications.

Figure 6 FPLOS-Deficient Structures Locations within the Watershed

19006-073-01 4-4

Table 7 FPLOS-Deficient Structures Data

Building Type Address FFE Node Stage

100YR

Stage

25YR

Stage

10YR

Single Family Detached

895 Jackson Road 11.17 182379 11.39 11.19 11.07

Single Family

Detached 3299 Bonita Drive 11.09 181475 11.34 11.24 11.18

Miscellaneous Residential - No Living Unit

Venice Avenue 9.5 181463 9.87 9.62 9.45

Single Family and Other Building

273 S Havana Road 8.81 181379 9.13 8.69 8.37

Single Family

Detached 12301 Loranza Avenue 12.47 200018 12.61 12.6 12.59

Condo – Duplex or Villa

0 S Cerromar Road 12.97 181165 12.98 12.39 11.97

Condo – Duplex or Villa 0 S Cerromar Road 12.87 181165 12.98 12.39 11.97

Single Family

Detached 11001 S Tamiami Trail 5.64 180616 5.8 5.15 4.77

Single Family and Other Building

273 S Havana Road 8.65 181379 9.13 8.69 8.37

Single Family Detached

566 Moon Drive 3.47 182204 3.67 2.22 1.94

Multiple Single Family Dwellings

601 N Jackson Road 11.9 182316 12.04 11.91 11.77

Table 8 SARCO Street Class

SARCO Thoroughfare FPLOS Road Class

Freeway/Expressways Evacuation1

Major Arterials Arterial or Evacuation1

Minor Arterials Arterial or Evacuation1

Major Collectors Collectors or Evacuation1

Minor Collectors Collectors

Significant Local Roads Neighborhood

1 If a road is designated as an evacuation route according to the County’s Thoroughfare polyline feature class, it is reclassified to be an evacuation route; otherwise, it is reclassified as Arterial, Collector, or Neighborhood.

The allowable flood depth for all roadway classifications is 6 inches except for Evacuation

Road. No flooding is allowed for an evacuation road. Jones Edmunds assumed that the edge-of-pavement (EOP) is 3 inches lower than the road center line (i.e., the crown of the road), which corresponds to the average roadway width of 24 feet with a 2-percent cross-slope from the crown of the road. This assumption is for the initial identification of FPLOS-deficient roadway segments.

Jones Edmunds employed GIS processing to develop the flood-depth raster to identify the portions of the road in which the EOP would be under water and above the allowable flood depth for each road classification. The duration of the flooding was calculated using the assumed EOP and model results. The deficient roadways were also visually checked for the reasonableness of results. Isolated deficient segments of streets less than 25 feet were not considered FPLOS deficient. Figures 19 and 20 show that the FPLOS-deficient roadways are

19006-073-01 4-5 south of Interstate 75. Table 9 summarizes the results from the street FPLOS evaluation by roadway class. Table 10 presents the roadway segments not meeting FPLOS design criteria.

In summary, approximately 3 percent of evacuation routes, 1.7% of collector, and

0.8 percent of neighborhood roads did not meet the FPLOS conditions for Category II.

Table 9 Roadway FPLOS Summary

FPLOS Roadway

Classification FPLOS Deficient Linear Feet Percent

Evacuation No 216,528 97

Yes 6,807 3

Arterial No 22,891 100

Yes 0 N/A

Collector No 57,543 97.8

Yes 1,305 2.2

Neighborhood No 1,067,765 99.2

Yes 8,654 0.8

Note: N/A = Not Applicable.

19006-073-01 4-6

Figure 7 FPLOS-Deficient Roadways

19006-073-01 4-0

Table 10 Depth, Duration, and Extent of Roadway Not Meeting FPLOS Design Criteria

Street ID Full Name From

Address To

Address Road

Classification Length

FT

Node EOP

Design Storm

Flood Stage

Depth Duration

ST_102012_022831

Rockley Boulevard

0 0 Collector 482 181160 10.6 25YR 11.88 1.26 32.8

ST_102012_023613

Rockley

Boulevard 0 0 Collector 535 181160 10.6 25YR 11.88 1.26 32.8

ST_102012_001731 S River Road 0 0 Evacuation 534 180679 7.44 100YR 7.94 0.5 29

ST_102012_001731 S River Road 0 0 Evacuation 807 180678 7.26 100YR 7.8 0.54 40

ST_102012_001731 S River Road 0 0 Evacuation 1002 180677 6.68 100YR 7.46 0.78 80.5

ST_102012_001731 S River Road 0 0 Evacuation 981 180676 6.41 100YR 7.43 1.02 78

ST_102012_030185 N River Road 501 899 Evacuation 601 180872 4.86 100YR 5.09 0.23 14.8

ST_102012_030186 N River Road 901 1295 Evacuation 68 180873 5.05 100YR 5.1 0.05 8.25

ST_102012_030186 N River Road 901 1295 Evacuation 721 180873 4.78 100YR 5.1 0.32 17

ST_102012_030676 S River Road 2700 2998 Evacuation 599 180750 7.57 100YR 7.95 0.38 22.8

ST_102012_030676 S River Road 2700 2998 Evacuation 754 180751 7.72 100YR 7.95 0.23 16.3

ST_102012_031023 S River Road 2100 2598 Evacuation 750 180549 10.9 100YR 11.67 0.79 84

ST_102012_031024 S River Road 2600 2698 Evacuation 207 180758 9.16 100YR 9.43 0.27 33.8

ST_05092014_038021 Billfish Avenue 19100 19118 Neighborhood 193 183277 9.94 10YR 10.92 0.98 5

ST_05092014_038022 Parrotfish Street 11600 11654 Neighborhood 381 183277 9.98 10YR 10.92 0.94 4.75

ST_05092014_038023 Parrotfish Street 11656 11678 Neighborhood 209 183277 9.94 10YR 10.92 0.98 5

ST_05092014_038024 Sea Trout Court 19200 19298 Neighborhood 444 183277 9.96 10YR 10.92 0.96 4.75

ST_05092014_038025 Yellowtail Court 19300 19398 Neighborhood 400 183277 10.1 10YR 10.92 0.84 4.5

ST_05092014_038028 Parrotfish Street 11680 11698 Neighborhood 71 183277 10.3 10YR 10.92 0.64 4

ST_05092014_038032 Goombay Court 11700 11798 Neighborhood 483 183277 9.89 10YR 10.92 1.03 5

ST_102012_002782 Los Altos 621 639 Neighborhood 33 180561 3.58 10YR 4.5 0.92 12.3

ST_102012_004557 Los Altos 641 699 Neighborhood 49 180561 3.55 10YR 4.5 0.95 12.5

ST_102012_005268 San Juan Drive 332 398 Neighborhood 264 200200 6.38 10YR 7.38 1 3

ST_102012_007839 Genoa Drive 12300 12398 Neighborhood 314 200206 7.22 10YR 8.19 0.97 3

ST_102012_007920 Capilla Lane 12100 12106 Neighborhood 181 200200 6.43 10YR 7.38 0.95 2.75

ST_102012_008851 Dorado Drive 12056 12098 Neighborhood 132 200200 6.19 10YR 7.38 1.19 3

ST_102012_009188 Dorado Drive 12100 12130 Neighborhood 150 200200 6.33 10YR 7.38 1.05 3

ST_102012_010570 Hernando Road 12000 12010 Neighborhood 101 200150 9.6 10YR 10.51 0.91 28.3

ST_102012_011364 Genoa Drive 12206 12214 Neighborhood 250 200206 7.27 10YR 8.19 0.92 3

19006-073-01 4-1

Street ID Full Name From

Address To

Address Road

Classification Length

FT

Node EOP

Design Storm

Flood Stage

Depth Duration

ST_102012_011661 Venetia Avenue 200 498 Neighborhood 271 200206 7.23 10YR 8.19 0.96 3

ST_102012_012513 Cutter Court 0 0 Neighborhood 93 180599 3.67 10YR 4.36 0.69 17.8

ST_102012_012611 Mayfair Drive 401 499 Neighborhood 72 181155 11.9 10YR 12.53 0.68 17.5

ST_102012_015003 Genoa Drive 12200 12204 Neighborhood 287 200206 7.21 10YR 8.19 0.98 3

ST_102012_017438 Orduna Drive 200 398 Neighborhood 128 200206 7.49 10YR 8.19 0.7 2.75

ST_102012_018065 Wexford Drive 478 496 Neighborhood 279 181162 10.6 10YR 11.87 1.32 29.3

ST_102012_018239 Rich Street 101 299 Neighborhood 667 181382 10.6 10YR 11.97 1.39 84.3

ST_102012_019893 Trionfo Avenue 12222 12298 Neighborhood 163 200148 8.8 10YR 9.75 0.95 19.5

ST_102012_019893 Trionfo Avenue 12222 12298 Neighborhood 306 200148 8.62 10YR 9.75 1.13 27

ST_102012_020393

Santurce

Avenue 200 398 Neighborhood 77 200206 7.48 10YR 8.19 0.71 2.75

ST_102012_020471 Schooner Street 220 231 Neighborhood 206 180599 3.68 10YR 4.36 0.68 17.5

ST_102012_020661 Durango Avenue 12300 12398 Neighborhood 260 200018 11.6 10YR 12.59 0.98 96.3

ST_102012_020661 Durango Avenue 12300 12398 Neighborhood 844 200018 11.6 10YR 12.59 1.04 96.3

ST_102012_023521 Wexford Drive 424 444 Neighborhood 39 181164 10.8 10YR 11.98 1.2 26

ST_102012_023829 Wexford Drive 462 476 Neighborhood 373 181165 10.7 10YR 11.97 1.32 27.8

ST_102012_025032 Fallbrook Drive 501 517 Neighborhood 33 181445 9.98 10YR 11.22 1.24 25.3

ST_102012_025646 E River Road 9001 9063 Neighborhood 189 180525 2.45 10YR 3.89 1.44 81.5

ST_102012_025646 E River Road 9001 9063 Neighborhood 42 180526 3.32 10YR 4.46 1.14 73.3

ST_102012_025749 N River Road 0 0 Neighborhood 322 180862 -0.5 10YR 1.72 2.22 96.3

ST_102012_027372 San Jose Street 634 698 Neighborhood 64 200018 11.4 10YR 12.59 1.2 96.3

ST_102012_027372 San Jose Street 634 698 Neighborhood 192 200018 11.3 10YR 12.59 1.28 96.3

ST_102012_029961 Lancashire Drive 1680 1898 Neighborhood 243 183292 10.6 10YR 11.22 0.65 95