The URL can be used to link to this page

Blackberry Farm-SY121108 (2)Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision on Elm Fork of the Trinity River for The Holmes Builders W;;P.'(E F•TF.�'jttt 9 :,..100352 o� �Zt SS�ONAI•EN��ti City of Coppell Dallas County, Texas by: O'Brien Engineering, Inc. 14900 Landmark, Suite 530 Dallas, Texas 75254 Ph: 972 - 233 -2288 Fax: 972 - 233 -2818 November 8, 2012 U L W L Im W% O U h ■ ■ W L n rU Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................:.......................... ..............................1 II. Objectives of This Study ............................................................. ..............................1 III. Hydrologic Analysis ..................................................................... ..............................1 IV. Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................... ..............................2 A. Methodology ........................................................................ ............................... 2 B. Corrected Effective Model .................................................... ..............................3 C. Pre - Project Model ................................................................. ..............................3 D. Post - Project Model ............................................................... ..............................4 E. Floodway Model .................................................................. ............................... 4 V. Results & Conclusions ............................................................... ............................... 4 Tables Table 1 Comparison of FIS 1 % AC Water Surface Elevations ......... ............................... 6 Appendices Appendix A — Exhibits x.10$0- tttkt Exhibit 1 — Effective FIRM ��fE•rF;lq tt� Exhibit 2 — Cross Section Location and Floodplain Map ,r* Exhibit 3 —Site Map * .::.......................::.' Exhibit 4 — Revised FIRM r JACOB LESU� Exhibit 5 — Proposed Site Grading Plan .... S:.. 100352 �Q Appendix B — Hydraulic Model Summary Output °si0N Duplicate Effective Model ^ Corrected Effective Model Post - Project Model l� /Z Appendix C — Floodway Model Summary Output Duplicate Effective Model Corrected Effective Model Post - Project Model Appendix D — FEMA Certifications Appendix E — Digital Copies of Model and Support Data I. Introduction O'Brien Engineering, Inc. (OEI) is under contract with The Holmes Builders (Owner) to prepare a request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision ( CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the development of a 54.6 -acre tract in Coppell and Carrollton, Texas. The subject tract is located north of Sandy Lake Road, west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River (Elm Fork), and approximately 2000 feet east of MacArthur Boulevard. According to the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Dallas County (map panel no. 48113CO155 J, dated August 23, 2001), the subject tract is partially encumbered by the 1 percent annual chance (1 % AC) floodplain (Zone AE) of Elm Fork, while the remainder of the tract is encumbered by the 0.2 percent annual chance (0.2% AC) floodplain (Shaded Zone X) of Elm Fork. A copy of the effective FIRM is contained in Appendix A, Exhibit 1. Denton Creek flows through the subject tract and drains into Elm Fork approximately 5,400 feet downstream. Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS), the Denton Creek 1% AC flood profile through the subject tract is dominated by Elm Fork 1% AC flood profile approximately 8,000 feet upstream of Denton Creek's confluence with Elm Fork. Denton Creek FEMA models were not available downstream of the point where the flood profile is controlled by Elm Fork. II. Objectives of This Study The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the floodplain hydraulics of Elm Fork in the vicinity of the project site for the purpose of reclaiming floodplain and to provide the basis for a request for CLOMR from FEMA. III. Hydrologic Analysis No hydrology was developed for this project. The FEMA models used in this study use the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) peak flood flow rates for Elm Fork. 1 IV.. Hydraulic Analysis The FEMA model for Elm Fork was requested and obtained from FEMA's library archive. The data obtained is in HEC -RAS format. The model was input into OEI's database and executed to verify data integrity. Upon review of the model, it was determined that the majority of the proposed development lies within the 1% AC ineffective flow area for Elm Fork. A. Methodology The floodplain and channel topography for the subject area were obtained from on- the- ground field data surveyed by Kadleck & Associates mapped to one -foot contour interval topography. The topography for limited portions of the floodplain outside of the project site was augmented with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 2007 aerial photography mapped to 2 -foot contour intervals. The topography for portions of the Denton Creek channel was augmented with topography developed for the Trinity River Corridor Mapping from a 1991 aerial survey mapped to 2 -foot contour intervals. The hydraulic analysis was conducted using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water surface profiles computer program, HEC -RAS (version 4.0). In addition, the hydraulic model for Elm Fork has two sets of geometry , data based on high frequency flood flow rates, consisting of the 10% to 1 % AC floods and low frequency flood flow rates consisting of the 0.2 % AC flood. Channel and overbank reach lengths were digitally measured using ESRI's ArcView software. Manning's roughness coefficients were verified through field reconnaissance with reference to "Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains Water - Supply Paper 2339," by the United States Geological Survey, 1989 and Ven Te Chow, "Open - Channel Hydraulics ". 2 B. Corrected Effective Model The Effective model was used as a platform for establishing the Corrected Effective model through the project area. The Corrected Effective model in the present study for Elm Fork was established by adding one cross section (97792) in the project vicinity and moving cross section 97178 approximately 180 feet downstream to river station 96997. The profiles of these two sections and section 97919 were updated with the topography data described in the methodology section of this report. Contraction and expansion coefficients used in the model are 0.1 and 0.3 respectively for normal floodplain conditions and 0.3 and 0.5 respectively near constrictions. Downstream reach lengths were updated based on the location of the new cross sections. IManning's roughness coefficients were entered into the model on the new sections using the horizontal variation method, consistent with the effective model. Ineffective flow limits based on contraction of flow due to encroachment of the Sandy Lake Road bridge were maintained based on-the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) workmap produced for the effective models and mapping. The model cross section locations are illustrated on Exhibits 2 and 3, "Cross Section Location and Floodplain Map" and "Site Map" found in Appendix A. C. Pre- Project Model The purpose of the Pre-Project model is to simulate any modifications that have occurred within the floodplain since the date of the Effective Model. The Pre - Project model is typically developed using the Corrected Effective model as a platform and, therefore, includes corrections and updated topography. For this study, the Pre - Project model of Elm Fork is identical to the Corrected Effective model as there were no modifications in the project vicinity, since the development of the Effective modeling. Therefore, no separate Pre - Project model of Elm Fork is included herein. D. Post - Project Model The Corrected Effective model was used as a platform to develop the Post - Project model. The Post - Project model of Elm Fork represents floodplain modifications, which would result from the proposed development, which includes placement of fill in the right overbank due to the proposed development. The proposed floodplain modifications begin near cross section number 97919 and continue through cross section 96997. Excavation of a pond is proposed on a portion of the subject tract near cross sections 97919 and 97792. Manning's roughness values were adjusted on cross sections 97919 through 96997 to represent proposed site conditions. Roughness coefficients used in the remainder of the model are identical to those in the Pre - Project model. A copy of the proposed site grading plan is contained in Appendix A, Exhibit 5. E. Floodway Model The Effective floodway model from FEMA was available for Elm Fork and obtained from FEMA's library , archive. The floodway encroachment stations from the Effective model are also used in the Corrected Effective model. For cross sections added to the Corrected Effective model, floodway encroachment stations were determined by scaling the floodway top widths on the Effective FIRM panel. V. Results & Conclusions A summary tabulation of water surface elevations and velocities for various conditions is contained in Table 1 below. A hydraulic summary output for each condition is contained in Appendix B and C. The revised FIRM is contained in Appendix A, Exhibit 4, and the FEMA certifications are included in Appendix D. Digital copies of the hydraulic modeling data are contained in Appendix E. The results indicate that the proposed project would not result in any increases in the 1% AC flood water surface elevations nor create erosive velocities or cause increases in erosive velocities. 0 We therefore ask that the City of Coppell approve this study and submit to FEMA in support of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. 5 Table 1 Comparison of FIS 1 %AC Flood Water Surface Elevations Location Cross Section Duplicate Effective Corrected Effective Post- Project Difference Natural MAC WSEL Encroached MAC /o WSEL Surcharge Natural MAC WSEL Encroached 1 AC MAC WSEL Surcharge Natural MAC WSEL Encroached 1 /o AC WSEL Surcharge Post - Project - Pre - Project ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft Column Number ID (1) (2) (2)-(1) (3) (4) (4)-(3) (5) (6) (6)-(5) (5)-(3) 110074 449.83 449.91 0.08 449.83 449.87 0.04 449.83 449.88 0.05 0.00 1 n9445 440,45 44Q.54 n nca 44Q.44 44Q.50 n06 448,44 44a,5n o_06 non 107964 449.26 449.36 0.10 449.25 449.31 0.06 449.25 449.31 0.06 0.00 106657 448.98 449.09 0.11 448.97 449.04 0.07 448.97 449.04 0.07 0.00 105936 448.78 448.90 0.12 448.77 448.84 0.07 448.77 448.84 0.07 0.00 105167 448.44 448.58 0.14 448.43 448.50 0.07 448.43 448.51 0.08 0.00 102686 448.03 448.19 0.16 448.01 448.09 0.08 448.01 448.10 0.09 0.00 101428 447.95 448.10 0.15 447.92 448.00 0.08 447.92 448.01 0.09 0.00 99708 447.81 447.98 0.17 447.78 447.87 0.09 447.78 447.87 0.09 0.00 Upstream Tie -in Limit 98884 447.66 447.84 0.18 447.63 447.73 0.10 447.63 447.73 0.10 0.00 Upstream Limit of Project 97919 447.44 447.62 0.18 447.42 447.44 0.02 447.42 447.44 0.02 0.00 97792 - - - 447.38 447.42 0.04 447.38 447.41 0.03 0.00 97178 447.07 447.22 0.15 - - - - - - - 96997 - - - 447.02 447.07 0.05 447.02 447.07 0.05 0.00 Downstream Limit of Project 93940 444.66 444.78 0.12 444.66 444.78 0.12 444.66 444.78 0.12 0.00 93359 443.66 443.86 0.20 443.66 443.86 0.20 443.66 443.86 0.20 0.00 Upstream Sandy Lake Rd 93297 443.47 443.68 0.21 443.47 1 443.68 0.21 443.47 443.68 0.21 0.00 Downstream Sandy Lake Rd 93212 443.46 443.67 0.21 443.46 443.67 0.21 443.46 443.67 0.21 0.00 93197 443.49 443.70 0.21 443.49 443.70 0.21 443.49 443.70 0.21 0.00 93196 442.28 442.73 0.45 442.28 442.73 1 0.45 442.28 442.73 0.45 0.00 93191 442.25 442.71 0.46 442.25 442.71 1 0.46 1 442.25 1 442.71 0.46 0.00 I 4K ZONE X a w PHILLIPS DRIVE RA, C' 0 a W J 0 co L m PARKWAY OF COPPELL 480170 w ONE X a 0 0 W Denton Creek ZONE X' BRACEB DRP CHESHIRE VILLAGE PARKWA` 8001 �v PRD ZONE AE V --J' ZONE ZONE X X ONE ZONE X . ZONE \ X ZONE X CREEK °so - -3 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP nA T ,T . A q P.nT TNTV TEXAS ANDv+, y y, INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 155 OF 125 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX CARROLLTON. CITY OF 460167 0155 J COPPELL, CITY OF 480170 0155 J DALLAS, CITY OF 480M 0155 J IRVING. CITY OF 480180 0155 J s w z a Z 0 MAP NUMBER 48113CO155 1 EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 23, 2001 t yH 5 �Q 0 0 Federal Emergency Management Agency This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov Brentw od /r /v- / �! / r t6g6 eau' la Chalfont / m i �y \ 01 \e 99708 4�) Creek Roun ck Jac •` � kson M rivers Gibbs 98884 ' /! ; .. ? / / /. / i / , _ /1 \ n Basltwood, a A� ForestwAOd / r COD; 00 o iota f a ;l : / / / �� i/ ,� / / ; / / 97919 hti �a es�wtYia h / / / / / / / / / / / /` / i" / / ' / / :/ .! i / / / / / t 97792 i onC�g _ s / � Pintail Fountain m Hea �' 1 -- 0 � � � / � � 96997 93940 � `� 3349` 9 _.- Sugarberry .! / '. / _.—Q. 191 93141 a ;� 92351 E LL v / / . B , tb J Sandy Lake Rd \! i /r / .q N Colonial AL 81530 reek 0 500 1.000 m , Feet ,' / c TI— lade s G Point p532 `a LEGEND Gga�m Cross Section ` wa ! F Bradf rd o� o. /' :!r //� Proposed Lot Layout I Pebble Creek 0 Proposed Pond 89694 ® Limit of Effective Flow (high flows) Limit of Effective Flow (low flows) �� v v / ! / / ! EXHIBIT 2 -. stream _centerline _ elm _fork :iEngineering, Inc. Intermediate Contour < Bt /tmOfeO // 14900 Landmark 131W, Suite530 Dallas,Texas 75254 p- 972233.2288 f 972233.2818 w .OBrienEng.c°m \ — eStC Pin Uf5 t m / l . Texas Registered Engineering Firm F -3758 Index Contour ster // / / FEMA Flood Hazard Zones (2001) try l � �, ' ,/ THE HOLMES BUILDERS �,. ° Sorel 9r° ) CROSS SECTION LOCATION AND Floodwa � am Cuttingh m r/ , ' .!` — y //� / ?� � � �� L DPLAIN MAP 1 \ F 00 0 X500 (0.2% AC) i = / / / !'/ // i ' / /� T/ /' _ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DATE: 6/23/2012 OEI JOB #: 347.002 MFM� �-. � C t� X J: }t\ A GLEN LAKES ZONE X - ��.ti. Old Denton. Creek N . f Z APPROXIMA E SCALE IN BEET w m i " OOC 0 ?G00 r i r, ZONE X x - - - -- - -- 3 V y 1 S RAIN TREE BRACEaRIDGE C!RCL DRIVE C.'HESHRE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 'ZONE } a r w REVISED p FIRM r FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 0 X .� 3�zr ZONE r 4 DALLAS COUNTY, vi�LAGE ` TEXAS AND PARK01— v y ,; INC i�RPi�RATED AREAS ZONE X a � Area of Revision PARK'tNAY 50 U`LVRRD PANEL 155 OF 725 easr_wooD ° � � * c�+' (SEE MAP 'NDEX FUR PANELS NOT PRINTEDi ZONE AE ,�t' CONTAINS. 10h1MLY ?Y' DUMB � PAAEL SjFF :X ZA Zone AE OF COPPELL f . rti ,.ta ��' :;AHROuLTG ,.C; TY OF au.F 1,5 J -,PPF r OF '!K'70 3155 480170 l - � � -.t� i � � AIDS � �F 48Gni 6^55 .. ��— — — Zone X� k14 �`' b!vv r .- aacteo 6,; ONE X ZONE X�, . ; a MAP NUMBER 48113CO155 1 ZONE � lip EFFECTIVE DATE: tan ZONE X ZONE X -.: AUGUST 23, 2001 4 CITY OF DAI,i.AS _ 480171 ^' ZONE \ X ^ti< <S ROAD " K '`` Federal Emergency Management Agency ��. \ ZONE X PEES E CREEK This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the ZONE AE-- G� ST KhUGSwiI.'�` P ai • r rs "t' S title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance 1 STONE _L CT �' a Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www. msc.fema.gov A SCALE: 1'-40' 0 20 40 a0 LEGEND_ nR F—d I- %d CA C— A- FF Flnleh Floor Tc Top of Oorb TP Top of Pa—wit a Gutte, TW Top of won BW Btt— of Wall +459.0 Fdtng ElInation --450-- EWOJN Centaur WM Propond ElmUm Proposed Cmtour MATCH LINE — SEE SHEET 2 7 Eah I r 5 PROP. 10 NNNGGGIII 6 f ZaEE RETAINI W I 7 38 LAKEWOOD ESTATES 1 X Vol .17.aP 602 IFP51.7 VR TV 49LO z 0 TIV 5 12 III 1 i 3 39 IV 4 4 \1 2 1 1 14 TW 50.0 7=0 FFN175 Ld Ld M TIF BW 4W 5a7 U) LL1 II Ld 5 2 31 KIMBLE COURT ADDITION Eau Vol. 77213. P T?. 999 LIJ Ts, 5ae 4 z W 48L -D VF5a PROPOSED RETAINING W 0"' PROP. 5' EASEMENf— VF50. 2 IFP49, ix B BLOCK C LOCK C PROPOSED EMERGENCY 4 ACCESS Fir 5ao TW 50.0 — ----- . . .... CITY OF COP TP&L EASEMENT - --------- / P� ------ . ........ T .................. SSMH ix Zl- PROP. 5' WALL .b7 BLOCK C EASEMENT )AVID V.—RS SIRWY APSMACi NO, 886 Ij CITY BM'J104 I I \.%\ I i Wv Square Cut an concrete sidewalk an bridge crowing a dralp:: ,age channel an the south side of Sandy Lake Road 125 ew, we t of and 51'3 south of the Intersection of Sandy Lake Road and Kimbel Kourt. THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED Elevation 449.38 FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM TBMIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY Square Cut an top of curb at median now In centerline OF L Lynn Kadleck, P.E. 47258 Sandy Lake Rood, west side of entrance to project, Date: Aug., 20 1 12 approximately 1100 fact met of Klmbel Kourt. Elevation 449.25 PREPARED BY TBMJZ KADLECK & ASSOCIATES Top of a found 1/2 Inch Iran rod at the northeast 94WEEFAM PLAWM SURVENSIC comer of the subject property. Elevation 444.80 A t9=72)W CENTRAL EX�AY SUITE 113 M GM 7`C`4 TBPE R,, " F-6450/RIPLS Reg. N& 100555-�a0 A SCALE: 1*-40' 0— 20 40 so LEGEND FIR Found h- Rod CA C—. A- FF Finish Fl— M Top of Curb TP Top of Pownent 0 Gutty 7W Top of Wd BIN Bottom of W.11 +452.0 Edwtng Elvwtlon I\`\ \ PROPOSED RETAINING W� 23 CITY OF COPPELL LAKEWOOD ESTATES 24 \\ X LOCK D Val. G�R5.7.Cq. 602 IFP50.61 4 X\ f 2 25 f --460-- Eldting Ct- ._RU 0 c-t— 26 Tw so WF \� 00001M.M. k V- 5ai ry 27 415 14 15 1x /BLOCK 28 25 rw 5ao 0 1 29 LAKEWOOD ESTATES Vol. QD4�57.,P 002 PO R.D C .19 4R3 0 12 27 LIJ V) 30 LILI \\\,R Ld V) PROPOSED = 971 1_ RETAINING Sao Ld n r 5W —J TIV .6 :Zzz 7w so 32 1w Sao 10 TW 5a Bw ".r 100 4&0 0 33 22 H 446 Twoao I IF 21 OR, .? 20 20 34 GR 49 TIV 5a aw a, 19 �10 VaU THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY 35 hL OCK OF L Lynn Kadeck. P.E. 47258 Data Aug., 2012 is ti TIV 49.4 PREPARED BY 7 KADLECK & ASSOCIATES PLAN" suw*mo ENGINEERM MATCH LINE -SEE SHEET 1 75074 00555-W "M "3 pTY BM 1104 Square cut on concrete sidewalk an bridge crowing a drainage channel on the south side of Sandy Lake Road 125*± feet east of and 51'± south of the intersection of Sandy Lake Road and Kimbei Kourt. Elevation 449.38 TBMJl Square cut on top of curb at median nose In centerline Sandy Lake Road, west side of entrance to project. approximately 1100 feet east of Kimbel Kourt. Elevation 449.25 TBMJ2 Top of a found 1/2 Inch Iran rod at the northeast corner of the subject property. Elevation 444.80 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 7w 4aa jny _ Bw 457 ,. I BW 8/ FP a �1 21 FP 1.1 \ 5 \ 1 � N 22 W i1 w 46.7 y CITY OF CARROLLTON _ e LJ e1pM1 ,,pe .1# e att LIMIT tNE OP 7c4d _ / CITY OF�CWPI'L ' DRAINAGE 7 / / EAR= \ \ \ ® _ 7 \ i 4A \ t I i l sin r 1 � i i 1 vary - x11"~ e I' 1' i 20 J LIMITS OF STORAGE POND AV v I 119 A\ \ �-.� DRAINAGE 12 .` ! i i EASEMENT 1 BUCE TRAIL i I v W \ Ld Ld Ld ® ; i I BLOCK F I i ® sir/ ma \ u( BLOCK D DO Ifp, nr 5a6 � ew n.r , !y \- OPOSED . �; n� I �- .� �� — — — RETAININCyWAvv A �y A,e n / TwSaD / 17 \ 4 aw TW 50. MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4 'o THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF L__Lynn Kadled4 P.E. 47258 Date: Aug., 2012 PREPARED BY KADLECK & ASSOCIATES w -M 76074 u -11. W&06W SCALE 1' =40' 0 20 40 so LEGEND FIR Fend bon Rod CA Carman Area FF Finish Flaon TC Top of Curb TP Tap of Palanont C nutter Tw Tap of wan Sw Battam of wall +459.0 EWtnq Elereaon 490-- Existing Contour �® Propwed Elevation Propew Contwr CITY BM /104 Square cut on concrete sidewalk on bridge crossing a drainage channel on the south side of Sandy Lake Road 125'± feet met of and 51'± south of the Intersection of Sandy Lake Road and Kimbell Kourt. Elevation 449.38 So a cut on top of curb at median now in centerline Sandy Lake Road, west side of entrance to project, approximately 1100 feet east of. Kimbell Kourt. Elevation 449.25 Top a Top of a found 1/2 Inch Iron rod at the northeast corner of the Subject property. Elevation 444.80 SCALE: 1 - =40' 0 20 • ^ 40 .,.. e0 FlR Farad Yon Rod CA C-7 Area FF FNbh Float TC Tap of Curb TP Top of P—t G auttar Tw Tap of Wdl Bw Rottdn of was +459.0 Exbh19 Elevation 460— ExWMg Centaur -- ®. Pn pmW EI—twn --gg— Pn posed Centaur W W () W W V) W Z J 2 H Q � 17 \ 0.4 16 15 II e- -- FP51. 8 / r / \ j I \ I t7 � /r / / IV G — JGC JI-1 GG 1 J 13 OW If r12 �• IFP4,9. � TV 5ao I Be --"._ C�7 9 % / 51. / PROP. 100 Yr. FLOODPLAIN \ ,X BLOCK F i i UMITS OF STORAGE POND \ CITY OF COPPELL \\ CITY L66T 11HE YN a r\ \ 120' DRAINAGE W so j \ \ \ B COBBLESTO : CONCRETE/ i! I III Of i. 45.9 Ali' 1 i i I l Wwo (' 4 46.5 a r V, i/ \ ;,i i 7 I Allf r Fa .MN A KS(W S RWY A9S7? SC': 10. 698 W. i'ERR Al RA 4 CITY BM 1104 Square cut on concrete sidewalk on bridge crossing a 23.6 AC. drainage channel on the south side of Sandy Lake Road CITY OF CARROLLTON 125'± feet east of and 51'± south of the intersection Vol. 91226, Pgq. 332 of Sandy Lake Road and Kimbel Kourt. D.R.D.C.T. Elevation 449.38 Square cut on top of curb at median now in centeriine Sandy Lake Road, west side of entrance to project, approximately 1100 feet east of Kimbel Kourt. Elevation 449.25 Top o Top of a found 1/2 Inch Iron rod at the northeast corner of the subject property. Elevation 444.80 THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF L Lynn Kadleck, P.E. 47258 Date: Aug., 2012 PREPARED BY KADLECK do ASSOCIATES E110iNESIB10 PIX9610 swnM 113 ��0000DD It t41aRAl EWAi�wAY 50fIE 11J (Y7Z) 651-07T 75074 1BPE Rp. No. F- 64W/iBPIS Rp. Ro. 100656 -00 THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF L Lynn Kadleck, P.E. 47258 Date: Aug., 2012 PREPARED BY KADLECK do ASSOCIATES E110iNESIB10 PIX9610 swnM 113 ��0000DD It t41aRAl EWAi�wAY 50fIE 11J (Y7Z) 651-07T 75074 1BPE Rp. No. F- 64W/iBPIS Rp. Ro. 100656 -00 0 HEC -R4S Plan: DE 10-100 Locations: User Damned HEC -RAS Plan: DE 500 Locabons: User Defined Profile: 500 YR 57000.00 422.53 451.76 446.611 452.35 0.001494 7.551 10797.50 1449.071 0.31 57000.00 422.60 451.13 446.54 451.34 ,0.000846 4.93 17186.45 2871.22 0.23 57000.00 422.71 450.81 446.01 450.95 0.000367 2.92 26713.39 4233.40 0.15 57000.00 420.20 450.41 446.73 450.54 0.000554 4.78 28547.86 5725.23 0.19 57000.00 418.75 450.11 446.80 450.21 0.000450 4.20 31767.99 5976.57 0.17 57000.00 419.00 449.58 449.73 0.000889 5.88 26036.75 5782.21 0.24 66500.00 419.80 448.94 448.99 0.000173- - 2.28 37859.96 7122.82 0.11 66500.00 418.90 448.82 448.87 0.000191 2.64 39302.23 8143.73 0.11 66500.00 417.60 448.62 448.67 0.000218 3.04 40076.93 8164.24 0.12 66500.00 416.90 448.41 448.46 0.000252 3.47 42077.27 8061.64 0.14 66500.00 416.20 448.11 448.17 0.000451 3.72 42544.89 9989.31 0.16 66500.00 416.50 447.67 447.77 0.000695 4.81 40383.74 9884.82 0.21 70700.00 417.30 446.48 446.57 0.000454 4.56 44979.02 10281.97 0.18 70700.00 417.50 446.11 446.26 0.000581 5.03 29645.90 6935.40 0.20 70700.00 417.50 445.60 442.20 446.18 0.000617 9.33 16723.46 4806.93 0.35 Bridge 70700.00 417.50 445.62 446.03 0.001190 7.78 16846.26 4831.311 0.29 70700.00 417.50 445.74 445.97 0.000816 6.03 23505.53 6334.471 0.24 70700.00 433.70 445.45 445.94 0.000932 10.95 19735.18 6000.011 0.58 70700.00 433.70 445.44 445.94 0.000935 10.97 19699.68 5994.98 0.58 Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =125658 125658 <--- .03 . �?0 .055 470 0 Legend 7 WS 100 YR Ground Ineff Bank Sta 460 450 c 0 a> W 440 430 420 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 110074 110074 .04 'I"1?05�4 P�— .04 301 .05 — .04 .09 .03 460 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 455 0 Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 ? w 435 430 425 420 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/812012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =109445 109445 .04 - � .12 .05 1 .03 - — .12 0 .12 --+O � 460 Legend 2 6 WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 455 Bank Sta 450 445 LI c 440 a� w 435 i i 430 425 420 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 107964 107964 ��-- .05 — .1 � .06 460 .04 .12 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground InefF 455 • Bank Sta 450 445 x c 440 CD w 435 430 i 425 420 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 106657 106657 �.os� . �-.12 .os � 460 0 5 450 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff Bank Sta c 440 a'> w 430 420 0 10oo 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) In J � C m � O O O O O O O co N O N � O o 0 C N d N �co Cl) O rn O L 0 o C) C CD N m CO CT Lo � .O- O �� O r � W M $ 00 N c o 0 CU r L w cc U) N w — — c rn 0 rn Lj- E N w °o u °v a� N N w 7 U) C 'L O O M L- CD Q CL N O O O LO T O N w O O O fO0 L It M CD N O r ( )J) UOIIBA913 In J � C m � O O O O N O T- O N 00 r C (C a L co 1+fD O O O O r � (B cD o O p co LO Cl O It I � i W y c C p � L N _ _ 0) O LL O O II cu N N W N >+ 7 U) Y CD U') 'c H L N CL o CL O O N O T� O Ll7 O LO O If) O O �t It V' � V (4) uogeAO13 � }o w c c � fn rn ° o c � � J � m � O O O O N O T- O N 00 r C (C a L co 1+fD O O O O r � (B cD o O p co LO Cl O It I � i W y c C p � L N _ _ 0) O LL O O II cu N N W N >+ 7 U) Y CD U') 'c H L N CL o CL O O N O T� O Ll7 O LO O If) O O �t It V' � V (4) uogeAO13 Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =102686 102686 071 —'045 03 .07 455 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 450 • Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 Ca w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station k1c) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 101428 101428 .07 '� .045 .045 —�� .03 07 470 M 0 1 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff Bank Sta 460 450 c m 440 a� w 430 i 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: BE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =99708 99708 1- 055 � 0 � .045 �F .03 �<— .09 �� 07 460 5 Legend WS 100 YR N Ground Ineff Bank Sta 450 440 c O N L 430 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) � }o C � Cl) O! � O C � C J O O m � O O O O N N O N � o c oO d o o � L (0 N O co O CO rn 'p C � (U 00 O co - o ii rn ° o O to m W w d � c n � o (0 C,)0 U) Y U- O CO W II 8� 8 cc N � N o<tLo 7 U) Oo � 0 •L r L d Q � C7 C? Cl- i C) N O O co LO O �O O O O_ d V V (4) UOIIBA913 O! � O C � C J �` m � Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97919 97919 > --� .05 . .045 ---.1 .07 'I 455 .07 0'1 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff 450 -Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 Cu a� w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97178 97178 .1 .05 — .08 —�—.07 � 09 7 12 —�0�— 455 .045 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground 450 A Ineff Bank Sta 445 440 x c 435 a� w 430 425 i 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =93940 93940 07 12 — .07� . .06 455 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff 450 � Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 a� w 430 425 i 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River ='Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93359 93359 .07 .12 '�' .045 +035 .045 450 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 445 Bank Sta 440 435 0 w 430 425 420 415 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93297 Section 93297 - Upstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake R .035 1 — .035 460- 3 Legend WS 100 YR t Ground i Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 Z6 > a� W 430 420 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 460 Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93254.5 BR -- 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road .035 3 Legend .035 WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 > 0 Lu 430 420 i 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 460- Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 Plan: DE - 10, RS = 93254.5 BR 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road .045 0 Legend .045 WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 a> w 430 420 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93212 Section 93212 - Downstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake 045 - 045 460 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 > a> W 430 420 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93197 93197 07� .05 .12 '�.065�� .0450 .05 470 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 460 450 c 440 w 430 i 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93196 93196 07-- .05�� —.12 '.065 .045 O .05 465 Legend 2 WS 100 YR } Ground A Ineff 460 Bank Sta 455 450 x C 0 C6 Lu 445 440 435 430 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93191 93191 •07 �� .05 - -- .12 �_ 065 .045 05 465 0 2 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 460 Bank Sta 455 450 c 0 Lu 445 440 i 435 430 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) HEC -RAS Plan: CE 10-100 Locafions: User Defined HEC -RAS Plan: CE -500 Locations: User Defined Profile: 500 YR Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =110074 110074 04 f�?0�4 �� .04- .05 �� .04 .09 .03 460 Legend WS 100 YR M Ground 455 Ineff • - Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 m w 435 430 i 425 420 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =109445 109445 .04 .12 .05 1 �— .03 — .12 —� 0 -- .12 >Ir03� 460 2 6 Legend WS 100 YR a Ground , Ineff 455- • Bank Sta 450 445 c m 440 CD Lu 435 430 i 425 420 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 107964 107964 04�.12�� --.05� .1 � .06 460 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff 455 • Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 Lu 435 430 425 420 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Station (ft) 460 450 Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 106657 106657 •06� . x—.12 .06 5 6/15/2012 i Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta Y c 440 w 430 420 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 105936 105936 06 � �'12 .06 460 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR N Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 (D w 430 420 i 410 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 105167 105167 —.07 .12 06 _I 455 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR F Ground 450 A Ineff • Bank Sta i 445 440 c •0 435 a� w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan:10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 102686 102686 07 �1 � '045 .03 .07 455 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR Ground 450 Ineff • Bank Sta 445 440 m 435 w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 101428 101428 .07 .045 —� I . �— .045 —J� .03 .07 'I 470 f 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 460 i 450 c 440 a'> w 430 420 i 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 99708 99708 055 �— .045 ),� — .03 .09 07 '� 0 460 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 Z5 w 430 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 98884 98884 .05 01.�— .045 �— .03 — .09 — .07 460 Legend 4 5 WS 100 YR F Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 (D w 430 420 i 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =97919 97919 .05— .045 --.1 —� 07 'I 455 .07 101 Legend 5 WS 100 YR F Ground A Ineff 450 0 Bank Sta 445 l� I jj 440 c .° 435 w 430 425 i 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97792 .07 .05 —� '045 — .1 .07 455 1 0 1 Legend 5 Ground i Ineff • Bank Sta 450 445 440 c m 435 (D Lu 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6115/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =96997 96997 .09 .12 —� O � .045 –� .1 � .05 �– .08 .07 >� 460 Legend 5 F Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 i /I 440 i-� c 0 a� w 430 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93940 93940 it .07 _� .12 'I .07 F 06 455 O Legend 5 WS 100 YR t Ground 450 A Ineff • Bank Ste 445 440 c 435 ? w 430 425 i 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =93359 93359 07 .12 -L .045 � .035 O .045 450 Legend 5 WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff 445 Bank Sta 440 435 c 0 Lu 430 425 420 i 415 2000 4000 6000 5000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93297 Section 93297 - Upstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake R .035 L .035 460- 3 Legend WS 100 YR —0 — Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 Ali c 0 m W 430 420 i 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93254.5 BR Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road .035 .035 460 3 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 CD W 430 420 i i 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93254.5 BR Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road .045 J .045 460 0� 5 Legend WS 100 YR t Ground A Ineff Bank Sta 450 i 440 c 0 a� w 430 420 r 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12,000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93212 Section 93212 - Downstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake .045 -1 ' .045 460 01- 5 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 0 a� W 430 420 410 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93197 93197 470 � • 07 — .05 —�� .12 � �— .065 .045 -. .05 OF 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • 460 Bank Sta i 450 c 440 cc w 430 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93196 93196 465 •07 ��- .05 —�� .12 .065 .045 O .05 2 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 460 0 Bank Sta 455 450 c 0 .6 a> W 445 440 435 R 430 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Corrected Effective 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93191 93191 465 .07 —�� .05 —��— .12 .065 — .045 O .05 2 Legend WS 100 YR — 0 Ground Ineff 460 • Bank Sta 455 450 c 0 w 445 440 435 -- 430 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) HEC -RAS Plan: Post 10-100 Locations: User Defined Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 110074 110074 04 04 P�� .04 �E— .05 �� .04 .09 +_ 03 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 109445 109445 Legend WS 100 YR M— Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Station (ft) )pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 107964 107964 05 'IF 1 .06 2000 3000 4000 5000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 106657 106657 .� x—.12 5 .06 J Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 1.05936 105936 12 —.06 _I Legend WS 100 YR - Ground Ineff 0 Bank Sta 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 105167 105167 )7___� 0�.12 5 .06 2000 4000 Station (ft) 6000 8000 Legend WS 100 YR Ground -I neff • Bank Sta 10000 Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 102686 102686 �1 0 � .045 .03 .07 r, Legend WS 100 YR t Ground Ineff Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 101428 101428 .045 T O 1 .045 — 03 f5 6/15/2012 .07 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 Legend WS 100 YR Ground -A Ineff • Bank Sta 12000 Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 99708 99708 —.055 n .045 � -.03 .09 07 Legend WS 100 YR —w Ground Ineff Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) )pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 98884 98884 —.05 ��— .045 - .03 —+— .09 .07 Legend WS 100 YR —t— Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 'pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97919 97919 III -1 .05 101 .045 — — .1 —�F .07 �-1110 � .07 5 7 4000 6000 8000 10000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground - A Ineff • Bank Sta 12000 Ipper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97792 .05 1 0 1 045 --+— .1 --�� .07 O .07 5 3 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend t Ground • Ineff - - • Bank Sta 1pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 96997 96997 �T .12 —� O— 045 —.1— .05 .OS 07 5 Legend Ground Ineff - - Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) )pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93940 93940 07 -F 12-- .o7 ----�O os R Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93359 93359 .12 '�' .045 .035 .045 OF 5 Legend WS 100 YR —i- Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 1pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 fiver = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93297 Section 93297 - Upstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake R Legend WS 100 YR Ground> i Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 1pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93254.5 BR Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93254.5 BR Bridge # 17 - Sandy Lake Road WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) )pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 'ver = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93212 Section 93212 - Downstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake Legend WS 100 YR Ground - Ineff • Bank Sta 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) 1pper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93197 93197 .05 .12 —�– .065 � .045 -�0 .05 5 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend` WS 100 YR t Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 14000 Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93196 93196 .05 - F .12 065 — .045 0 .05 2 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 14000 Jpper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93191 93191 — .05 >1* —.12 065 .045 O 2 6/15/2012 .05 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground • Ineff • Bank Sta 14000 HEC -RAS Plan: DE - FW Locations: User Defined HEC -RAS Plan: CE -FW Locations: User Defined Plan: PostProject -FW Locations: User Defined U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE O.M.B No. 1660 -0016 Expires February 28, 2014 Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20958 -3005, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660- 0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90 -448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93- 234. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS /FEMA/NFIP /LOMA -1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FR 7990. DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM DHS -FEMA This request is for a (check one): ® CLOMR: A letter from DHS -FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72). ❑ LOMR: A letter from DHS -FEMA officially revising the-current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or flood elevations. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 & 72) B. OVERVIEW IP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date 0301 City of Katy TX 48473C 0005D 02/08/83 0287 Harris Coun TX 48201 C 0220G 09/28/90 City of Coppell TX 48113C 0155J 08/23/01 F ding Source: Elm Fork of the Trinity River s of Flooding: ® Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) Name /Identifier: Blackberry Farms 4. FEMA zone designations affected: AE :,X (choices: A, AH, AO, Al -A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1 -V30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ® improved Methodology /Data ® Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Base Map Changes ❑ Coastal Analysis ® Hydraulic Analysis ❑ Hydrologic Analysis ❑ Corrections ❑ Weir -Dam Changes ❑ Levee Certification ❑ Alluvial Fan Analysis ❑ Natural Changes ® New Topographic Data ❑ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. FEMA Form 086 -0 -27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 1 of 3 b. The area of revision encompasses the following structures (check all that apply) Structures: ❑ Channelization ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Bridge /Culvert El Dam ❑ Fill ❑ Other (Attach Description) 16. ❑ Documentation of ESA compliance is submitted (required to initiate CLOMR review). Please refer to the instructions for more information. C. REVIEW FEE Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included? ® Yes Fee amount: $4400 ❑ No, Attach Explanation Please see the DHS -FEMA Web site at http: / /www.fema.gov /plan /prevent/fhm /frm_fees.shtm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions. D. SIGNATURE All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Name: Jacob S. Lesue, PE, CFM Company: O'Brien Engineering, Inc. Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: 972 - 233 -2288 Fax No.: 972 - 233 -2818 14900 Landmark Blvd., suite 530 E -Mail Address: jlesue@obrieneng.com Dallas, Texas 75254 Signature of Requester (required): ��—� c Date: As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) or conditional LOMB request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all of the community floodplain management requirements, including the requirements for when fill is placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMB, will be obtained. For Conditional LOMR requests, the applicant has documented Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance to FEMA prior to FEMA's review of the Conditional LOMR application. For LOMR requests, I acknowledge that compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA has been achieved independently of FEMA's process. For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, documentation from the agency showing its compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA will be submitted. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Official's Name and Title: Kenneth M. Griffin, PE, CFM, Director of Engineering Community Name: City of Coppell Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: (972) 304 -3686 Fax No.: (972) 304 -3570 255 Parkway Blvd Coppell, Texas 75019 E -Mail Address: kgriffin@ci.coppell.tx.us Community Official's Signature (required): Date: CERTIFICATION 13Y REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND /OR LAND SURVEYOR This certification is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information data, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and any other supporting information as per NFIP regulations paragraph 65.2(b) and as described in the MT -2 Forms Instructions. All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Certifier's Name: Jacob S. Lesue, PE, CFV1 License No.: 100352 Expiration Date: 9/30/13 Company Name: O'Brien Engineering, Inc. Telephone No.: 972 - 233 -2288 Fax No.: 972 - 233 -2818 Signature: buy i Date: // e+ lz_ E Mail Address: jlesue@obrieneng.com FEMA Form 086 -0 -27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 2 of 3 are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal. Form Name and (Number) Required if ... ® Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water - surface elevations ❑ Riverine Structures Form (Form 3) Channel is modified, addition /revision of bridge/culverts, addition /revision of levee /floodwall, addition /revision of dam ❑ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations ❑ Coastal Structures Form (Form 5) Addition /revision of coastal structure ❑ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6) Flood control measures on alluvial fans y�r'�� '•gd'`ld .............................. JACOB LESUr 100352 :',Q FEMA Form 086 -0 -27, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 1 Page 3 of 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.M.B No. 1660-0016 RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM Expires February 28, 2014 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.5 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right corner of this form. Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington VA 20958 -3005, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660- 0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed survey to the above address. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT AUTHORITY: The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Public Law 90 -448, as amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93 -234. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This information is being collected for the purpose of determining an applicant's eligibility to request changes to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). ROUTINE USE(S): The information on this form may be disclosed as generally permitted under 5 U.S.0 § 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This includes using this information as necessary and authorized by the routine uses published in DHS /FEMA/NFIP /LOMA -1 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) February 15, 2006, 71 FR 7990. DISCLOSURE: The disclosure of information on this form is voluntary; however, failure to provide the information requested may delay or prevent FEMA from processing a determination regarding a requested change to a NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Flooding Source: Elm Fork of the Trinity River Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied A. HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ® Not revised (skip to section B) ❑ No existing analysis ❑ Improved data ❑ Alternative methodology ❑ Proposed Conditions (CLOMR) ❑ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 1 %- Annual- Chance Discharges Location Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.) Effective /FIS (cfs) Revised (cfs) 3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply) ❑ Statistical Analysis of Gage Records ❑ Precipitation/Runoff Model 4 Specify Model: ❑ Regional Regression Equations ❑ Other (please attach description) Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters), and documentation to support the new analysis. 4. Review /Approval of Analysis If your community requires a regionall, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval /review. 5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Is the hydrology for the revised flooding source(s) affected by sediment transport? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your explanation.. FEMA Form 086- 0 -27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 1 of 3 1. Reach to be Revised B. HYDRAULICS Description Cross Section Water- Surface Elevations (ft.) Effective Proposed/Revised Downstream Limit* Upstream Section of Sandy 93297 443.47 443.47 Lake Rd Upstream Limit* 770' north of northern prop 98884 447.66 447.63 hrnindsry *Proposed /Revised elevations must tie -intro the Effective elevations within 0.5 foot at the downstream and upstream limits of revision. 2. Hydraulic Method/Model Used: HEC -RAS 3. Pre - Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models* DHS -FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS, to aid in the review of HEC -2 and HEC -RAS hydraulic models, respectively. We recommend that you review your HEC -2 and HEC -RAS models with CHECK -2 and CHECK -RAS. 4. Models Submitted Duplicate Effective Model* Corrected Effective Model* Existing or Pre - Project Conditions Model Revised or Post - Project Conditions Model File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Post - Project Other - (attach description) File Name: Plan Names * For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. Floodwav Natural Run File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Base Flood Plan File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Corrected Effective File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Post - Project Other - (attach description) File Name: Plan Names * For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. Floodwav Run Datum File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj FW Dup Eff NAVD 88 File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj FW Corrected Effecti NAVD 88 File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj FW Post - Project NAVD 88 File Name: Plan Name: ® Digital Models Submitted? (Required) C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS A certified topographic work map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and proposed conditions 1 %- annual- chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1 %- and 0.2 %- annual- chance floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). ® Digital Mapping (GIS /CADD) Data Submitted (preferred) Topographic Information: On -site on the around survey Source: Kadleck and Associates Date: January 2012 Accuracy: Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM must tie -in with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and /or FBFM, at the same scale as the original, annotated to show the boundaries of the revised 1 % -and 0.2 %- annual- chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie -in with the boundaries of the effective 1 % -and 0.2 %- annual- chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area on revision. ® Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required) FEMA Form 086- 0 -27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 2 of 3 D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS" 1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase? ® Yes ❑ No a. For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations: The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot compared to pre - project conditions. • The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot compared to pre - project conditions. b. Does this LOMB request cause increase in the BFE and /or SFHA compared with the effective BFEs and/or SFHA? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner notifications can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions. 12. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill? ® Yes ❑No If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(A)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please seethe MT -2 instructions for more information. 13. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1%-annual-chance floodplains [studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being established. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification can be found in the MT -2 Form 2 Instructions.) 4. For CLOMR requests, please submit documentation to FEMA and the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Please see the MT -2 instructions for more detail. * Not inclusive of all aDDlicable reaulatory reauirements. For details, see 44 CFR pails 60 and 65. FEMA Form 086- 0 -27A, (2/2011) Previously FEMA Form 81 -89 MT -2 Form 2 Page 3 of 3 O'Brien Engineering, Inc. 14900 Landmark Blvd, Ste. 530 Dallas, TX 75254 p 972.233.2288 1 f 972.233.2818 www.obrienenci.com I ftp.obrieneno.com Texas Firm ID # F-37581 Oklahoma Firm ID # 4962 GSA Schedule Holder GS- OOF -0009X TXMAS Contract TXMAS -12- 899080 Twenty Five Years of Excellence Since 1987 A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)