Loading...
Blackberry Farm-SY121108 (3)Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision on Elm Fork of the Trinity River for The Holmes Builders Illell-z- 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 V W O W L r�� eJ 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 Exhibit 1 — Effective FIRM Exhibit 2 — Cross Section Location and Floodplain Map Exhibit 3 — Site Map Exhibit 4 — Revised FIRM Exhibit 5 — Proposed Site Grading Plan Appendix B — Hydraulic Model Summary Output Duplicate Effective Model Corrected Effective Model Post - Project Model 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. 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. Manning'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. 3 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. 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 N U � C.6 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O d A N � C G O C C O C7 GO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ci C C C N O d O tT co O O O O 1� O d O 01 O 01 O Q� O O r N 0 C9 0 O O N r O N r N r N r N O -t O d' t 7 U N O N O O It O r` M '-t r r` M (D M r` O M r d Q W Co M O CO T O CO r` � O r� O (D (D r` r` r� + co p o U N 0\ It It ct � Ict It It Nt It 1-t 1.41 It It It It It C W M q Lo r, r, M T N M M N M N (O (o r` (D M Co O Q W CO N M (O d d N N o ' Z It It It It It It N C O 4) 2) M L IC t0 IP• 1� h� CO co O> O N 4� N O r r r If! t0 W O O U � U W J r, O T g It O M O r` M q N r` M (D M r` O M T Q W M Ln M O M Lo O O M r` d d: O r` CD (D (D r` r` r, d W p o U $ M Oi Oi Oi 00 00 co co rl r` n r- r- d' m M M M N N r U 0, > U �t It It It It I' � d' It It tt I It It �t d' d' d' 'tt �t It It d' V* tp 3 � T> w tt t It d 0 o t� N t0 U. Q W OMO. � N q r O q� (q Tt M O (00 (D d^ N O o C v O M M (D w CD M r` r` r` r` r` r` * M M M M N N Q >n Z r> It It g It It I It I It 't It It It It 0 r d co 2 LL N Co O v- N 't (O O� CO O O N O r r r O (D t V- I r N N N N et It p N > � U O W CL E W s U J M � (D M M O O O M Lo M O dt M N (O N N CO (O CD CO O r` (0 O r` Cl) r� r` N Q W Ln T r q � O p o (n M O M 'M Co CD CD (p r, r- r- ' r` It M M M M N N (� co o, d' ct d [t d d It It 'd' It It It It It It It It a c W cd U J M LO O BCD TO CD M Lo T co ,t n (D (D r� (D M Co Lo Q W .-. Co d. N r` 'I*: O M M (0 14: O (D (D 't N N � (0 \ T M M M co CO CO CO r- r` r, r- ' r` 't M M M M N N Z T It Iq It It It g q Iq lt �I'd- It � Iq 't It It � tt d d It et 't 'T V d d d It rt It It to C It r, 0 d' It CO r.- to M M r- (D 0 M CD N w 4 M N M r- O O r- N r- (0 T M .O 0 U O P- N O t- w Co M M r` T M M 't M LA M M N N _M O T M T O OO 200 LMO O to O O O M CD r- r- r` (D co co Cl) M M co co M M M M M M M M M M M M M U 5 ) N Y •_ O �- Y J o E ° J O J p E c U c J c U _ (C _°J z H J co m (n N c EE w .2 2 N co a c o +' c o o a s a U N Br ntw od .j-. kau akevew /// 0 �-- / — Chalfont Gem \ 99708 i Roundrock a/ j rivers Gibbs rr / t / / / l / /) /t 98884 \ ° Parkwa / Basliwood � V_ a / Forestwnod 97919' 97792 Pintail c o / Fountain Head 93940 , , Fou tarn ' i _e 93359`\ g ry — �_ �..,�,� 93.191 9 su arber / / / / / /// _ / _ 3141" / / t 235 J 9 o San/ Q B� to r dy Lake Rd - ±� /� b / �fl I Grapevine Creek o wo 1.000 ( ) m Feet �/� } — f Snot 9s I - // T,e PJ Glade Point o rn 2 \\ LEGEND Cross Section Proposed Lot Layout `I j Bradt rd `� 9 Pebble Creek 0 Proposed Pond 0 LL Limit of Effective Flow (high flows) VV +� Limit of Effective Flow low flows ` .✓ 1� /,,a / / EXHIBIT 2 (low Stonecres�,� / /J ��c - -- stream_ centerline_ elm_ fork o 3 �`t r' // .�i Engineering, Inc. Intermediate Contour ✓ Bittmor o p @ Y. / i\ )j I / / - // '$ ( 149001andmark Blvd, Suite 530 Dallas Texas 75254 97 Index Contour Uf51 /I( /' / / p: 972233.2288 l' 972.233.2818 — .OBrienEngcom Pine m // \ i / / I 1 Texas Registered Engineering Firm F -3758 estc -ter F ',I / / I I / FEMA Flood Hazard Zones (2001) THE HOLMES BUILDERS 0 AE (1 %AC) c Cora GoV2rdrY n / / / l CROSS SECTION LOCATION AND Floodway ° cuttingn /// ; ! i Barringto FLOODPLAIN MAP n 0 X500 (0.2% AC) � / / / / / � �. T y D _ ALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS - �'"'�� �1J /!\`! ( ,_,.y_ �' /•;'�\ ` � �. / / i ` •/ � � \ \ '� DATE: 6/23/2012 OEI JOB #. 347.002 a U 0 LL Limit of Effective Flow (high flows) VV +� Limit of Effective Flow low flows ` .✓ 1� /,,a / / EXHIBIT 2 (low Stonecres�,� / /J ��c - -- stream_ centerline_ elm_ fork o 3 �`t r' // .�i Engineering, Inc. Intermediate Contour ✓ Bittmor o p @ Y. / i\ )j I / / - // '$ ( 149001andmark Blvd, Suite 530 Dallas Texas 75254 97 Index Contour Uf51 /I( /' / / p: 972233.2288 l' 972.233.2818 — .OBrienEngcom Pine m // \ i / / I 1 Texas Registered Engineering Firm F -3758 estc -ter F ',I / / I I / FEMA Flood Hazard Zones (2001) THE HOLMES BUILDERS 0 AE (1 %AC) c Cora GoV2rdrY n / / / l CROSS SECTION LOCATION AND Floodway ° cuttingn /// ; ! i Barringto FLOODPLAIN MAP n 0 X500 (0.2% AC) � / / / / / � �. T y D _ ALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS - �'"'�� �1J /!\`! ( ,_,.y_ �' /•;'�\ ` � �. / / i ` •/ � � \ \ '� DATE: 6/23/2012 OEI JOB #. 347.002 F 7 L A 0 I. 11 ZONE X (`j/ a Old Denton Creel W Z Nio ZONE X- F PHILLIPS RAIN TREE ZONE X CR(-LF 3RACEQ,RIC E _° ' f� DRIVE UP CHESHRE DRIVE C jQ. CI-1ALFON PLACE 90 Q 4 �pp ZY..' y@! ' +gar .e i y S i' ZONE --- _ VILLAGE PARKWAY PARKVZ \\ <vf�aD 2 ZONE AE Curiie� OF COPPELL 480170 1 )NE X Z Nio ZONE X- F Irl NE f s e Zone X ZONE X o' /ZONE ZONE X �T Area of Revision Zone AE 44 ZONE X CZ'I'S' OF LDx 481)171 cR�F:K I F ZONE X a. j Z AE �`SO -000 APPROXIMATE SCALE !N FEET pp0 r NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE pROGR M I REVISED FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DALLAS cpL, *rTTI', N � PORATEn AgEAS PANEL 155 OF 725 PRI�T� (SEE NAP NDEX FpF r�ANrL NU T ' 1—C? _AIIVS ce_�MI �Vvj C i 1vt A ®1551 48113 DATE: i°' ° �F EWE S S-r -r 7-3,2001 AUG L) Federal Emergency_ �y zt Agency Y Manama This is an official ed flood map. 11 was extracted copy of a portion of P ���t 'et ect changes 0.. r a using F -MIT the above re�� r r— t to the date on the mendments u,ki— _ On -Line. Thic .,, _ P �'- _...,�.—I Insurance 1 +e 3 Y UP ZY..' y@! ' i i' Irl NE f s e Zone X ZONE X o' /ZONE ZONE X �T Area of Revision Zone AE 44 ZONE X CZ'I'S' OF LDx 481)171 cR�F:K I F ZONE X a. j Z AE �`SO -000 APPROXIMATE SCALE !N FEET pp0 r NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE pROGR M I REVISED FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DALLAS cpL, *rTTI', N � PORATEn AgEAS PANEL 155 OF 725 PRI�T� (SEE NAP NDEX FpF r�ANrL NU T ' 1—C? _AIIVS ce_�MI �Vvj C i 1vt A ®1551 48113 DATE: i°' ° �F EWE S S-r -r 7-3,2001 AUG L) Federal Emergency_ �y zt Agency Y Manama This is an official ed flood map. 11 was extracted copy of a portion of P ���t 'et ect changes 0.. r a using F -MIT the above re�� r r— t to the date on the mendments u,ki— _ On -Line. Thic .,, _ P �'- _...,�.—I Insurance i •I�,u � I 1 � I fP T1 � � /© SCALE: 1' =40' r 0 20 40 e0 LEGEND w 4f°,io FIR Found hon Rod CA can m Area PROPOS r' ` 6 FF ��fFloor RETAINIt W TP Top of Pavement 0 GuRa TW Tap of wall / BW Bohan of Wall 36 �sy +459.0 Ed..9 El—tkn LAKEWOOD ESTATES ®a Vol. 94067, P9y. 802 ! Pr�pawwl D.R.D.C.T. TW 49.0 —o— Praposed Cmtour \ W 44.9 i \ \ 5 �i � O1. / TV 411.9 r l W "Ot O I I i _ T / 39 Or \' 1 .a I \\ \ \ \ 3 \ B W 448.1 ' (/ I 5I.1 I 7 61 � FP51.5 I 5 57 1 sa I I i \ ( I 4 1X :y n.r I 1.4 1 1 1 \ / I / 2 I / 14 IJ 15 \\ \\ _ d TV Sae 0A PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROP. 5' WALL �i ( I EASEM ix ENT / i i 4 \ LOCK C -\_:- �\ ,,: /1 EMEERRGENNCY -� "e \ -!45 ;t \ \ / ACCESS /: .. 77 rw so \ \ \ .... / Mx EASEMENT / J ix _ i PROP. 5' WALL `BLOCK C " EASEMENT JA`f0 MW R5 30VEY APS(RAC, NO I CITY BM 0104 Square cut on concrete sidewalk on bridge crossing a \\ \ \\ drainage channel on the south side of Sandy Lake Road O 125'± feet east of and 51'± south of the Intersection - of Sandy Lake Road and Kimbell Kourt. Q \\ `•�\�� Flw fl— d.d.a..1A \ SCALE: 1' =40' — 24 \ �� LOCK D I t ! 0 _ _ _ — \ LAKEWOOD ESTATES 1 Vol. 9D 5U.CPT 802 LEGEND _T _ _ — — — \� \�\ I\ J pp 1 ! 4 RR Feund ken Red — ' \\ i ` 7.B• 1, I fP51.1 FF FI.Ih Floe FPS. 7C rep M Curb TP rep of P—.t _ 2 G mt. rW Top or wm 25 9W Bohan a1 Wo0 +460.0 EAAt g El—tin 466-- EdNYiq Centav o q %�o Prope..d Elevation IP' IP' .� ., 7w 3a7 1w 30.7 0 �.. — — j r I t n• —� Propeud Conta4' 26 Tw 5a • 'b• BW 47.0 W 4B.s ,MO' )W 4dt3 \ a I' "'' �' , 147 IF, J p111111 ifl /� w �, f7 / A 27 ,40.1 / „) 14 15 Bw° / ix BLOCK iW i LAKEWOOD ESTATES \ Vol. 94057, P9. 602( \� 1 •,/ A D.R.D.CT. 40.3 27 ' iW 300 - -- -- �� 1w 1ao 2X \ � _ PROPOSED ��/tS6M ENF RETAINING 31 30.0 .. .._ . .... 32 l ..... 241 ! ,n ice. Wnf 1w 500 f'P5'1.3 iW 30.0 ii Bw Mr f \ M5 IzI _ 2, 20 CR 40.8 -� 34 Tw 30.J 4 M _ a 35 �r // / • \\ /i // _ l _.. u�l yr wr {c�a r- '`\ ( I _ I DRAINAGE' 7 J / / / EASEMENT \ IR7 as . 1 / !, FP5f.0 as • \\ \ ' 20 21 % LIMITS OF STORAGE POND \\ \\ \ 1�9 YD' DRAINAGE \ - I� y" i .� ® M - I) EASEMENT h'Y 1 :\ �\ BIKE Imo ! W I FP51.2 i ° \ W -- \ ® __ Z \ 4 \ \ l / I' Aso I 1 x V BLOCK F , sae 4 \ �b �\ \ q(< BLOCK D Qv Tw Sao 5\ \ .......... / r aw n, ow rci \' — — — I ' i RETAININ"A \ \\ M,e\` \\ 13 is II 4 TW aw Sao SCALE: 1"=4-O' 0 20 40, M U LEGEND 49.4 FIR F­d Iran Rod CA C.. A- FF MIA Fl— j m Tap f 12-- Top of Curb TP P_ t tt. G wTW Top of w 0, aw Btt— of W.0 459.0 E.M q Oa­tlon IV NAGE --460-- ExWJg C-t— WA Prop—d 8 Om F,�T Propomd Canton 4e1 9 aw Tw 5a IM-71 -PROPOSED COBBLESTO 7 CONCREM/ Tw .01 p II I 9 46-2 10 Sao w Mr ow LJJ 4 Ld PROPOMD,.RETAINING WALL 4aa rw Sao sw ".? Tw 5ao F aw LLI 445 ow 45.5 W TW 500 ,<< aw ".? Ld PROP. 100 Yr. FLOODPLAIN 5ao 43, lit, j `4 \1N iliJ Ad / ix h BLOCK F 10 HEC -RAS Plan: DE 10.100 Locations: User Defined HEC -RAS Plan: DE 500 Locations: User Defined Profile: 500 YR 57000.00 422.53 451.76 "6.611 452.35 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 4831.31 0.29 70700.00 417.50 445.74 445.97 0.000816 6.03 23505.53 6334.47 0.24 70700.00 433.70 445.45 445.941 0.000932 10.95 19735.18 6000.01 0.58 70700.00 433.70 445.44 445.941 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 O Legend 7 WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff Bank Sta 460 450 c 0 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 '� "O Y 4 P— .04 .05- .04 .09 .03 460 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff 455 • Bank Sta 450 445 arr C 440 a� 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 11/8/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 109445 109445 •04 .12 I� .05 9 �— .03 -- .12 0 .12 --+03� 460 2 6 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground i Ineff 455 Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 CD w 435 430 425 420 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 �.04 .12 .05 � .06 460 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff 455 Bank Sta 450 445 c m 440 (D w 435 430 425 420 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 = 106657 106657 •06 � .06 � 460 .12 0 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground Ineff Ban• k Sta 450 c m 440 >> w 430 420 0 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 = 105936 105936 •06 � � .12 .06 '� 460 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR — N Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c ? Ca w 430 420 i 410 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 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 = 105167 105167 �•07 06 455 0�.12 legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground 450 A Ineff Ban• k Sta 445 440 c 435 ? w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 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 = 102686 102686 .045 03 07 �1 .07 455 0 Legend 5 WS 100 YR Ground Ineff 450 0 Bank Sta 445 I / 440 c 435 w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 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 = 101428 101428 .07 -- .045 --�. O . � .045 � —.03 } .07 470 5 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 460 450 c 440 CD w 430 420 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Upper Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: DE - 10, 50, and 100 -year Plan 11/812012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 99708 99708 .055 �-— .045 �— .03— .09 .07 J 460 6 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • 450 Bank Sta 440 c 0 cc w 430 420 i 410 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) 0004E W uo13e3S OOOZ6 00006 0008 0009 0004 OOOZ 0 064 OZ4 -Oct, m CD 0 044 OS4 e3S NUee • haul puna!D —t- ZIlk OM SM 5 pua6a� �— —90' LO' 60' — £0' — 940' — to 094 48886 48886 = SLJ £la = 40e9�:1 )P03 w13 = Dania Z60Z/84 6 UBId JEGA -006 PUB b5 `06 - 3d :UBld 8666 AeW ZZ - Apn ;S Al!uul Jaddn 00014 (4) uoge }g 000z� 0000 0009 0009 000ti cool o env orti szti oEv M CD 9 5Eti o Ob4 544 e3S NUes • 09ti haul punaE) —a- 2hk 006 SM pua6a� � L' Sti0' S0' LO' LO' 89ti 6WL6 666L6 = SN CIO = yoea�{ )P03 w13 = Janib Z 60Z/8/ 6 6 veld JeaA-00 6 PUe `09 `0 6 - 30 Ueld 966 6 AeVy ZZ - APnjS A lul l jeddn .00044 (u) uoilels 000zL 0000E 0009 0009 0004 000z 0 5L4 oz4 sz4 oE4 m m SE4 . a• 044 Amw& 544 elS �IUeB 054 g out --- T punojE) &k 00 L sM puaBa� LO' < 80' 50' — �� L' 540' �-- Z L' 60' 994 9LLL6 9LLL6 = S2i gla = gOsg�l VOJ w13 =Jania Z WZ /84 � ueld jean( -00 � PUe b5 b 6 - 34 :ueld 866 6eW ZZ - Apn }S Appi jaddn UOOtiL W uoge ;S OOOZL 00006 0009 0009 OOOti OOOZ 0 OZti 9Z4 0£4 m CD 5£4 a• 0" S4ti elS NUee • OSti gaul — v- punoig ■ UA 00 L SM pua6a� 9 0 - 90' ' �— LO' LO �< Z L' T —� 5Sti 046£6 OV6£6 = S2i > ;B = 140ea2{ )P03 w13 = JMn j ZLOZ /8/6 6 Ueld Jean( -006 PUe '05 `0L - 30 :Ueld 966 E 'IeW ZZ - Apn ;S Appi Jaddn 00046 Cq) u0i1e3S OOOZ6 00006 0009 0009 0004 OOOZ 964 OZ4 9Z4 -Oct, m cn o' 9E4 044 elS NUeB 944 0 gauk --v -- punojE W, 00 6 SM pua6a� 9 940' ,� 9£0' 940' ,L ZV LO' 094 696£6 69EE6 = S2! £ ;a = Weak )iJoJ w13,= Jani2{ ZLOZ /9 /L L Ueld Jea/1-00 L PUB '09'0L-30 :Ueld 9661- AeW ZZ - ApnjS Appi Jaddn 00046 (4) uogels OOOZ6 00006 0008 0009 0004 OOOZ 064 OZ4 0£4 ED CD `m o 044 094 elS NUes • .4aul —fi- puna!D ■ 2!.100 6 SM pua6a� £ 5£0' J0� S£O' 094 Z{ aNe-1 ApueS jo; uoi;oas ssojo 6wpunoq weaj;sdn - L6Z£6 uol;oaS L6Z£6 = MJ £3 a = gOeaa )Po:J w13 - Dania Z60Z /846 Ueld Jean( -006 PUe b5 `06 - 3a :ueld 8666 AeW ZZ - Apn }S A}luul Jaddn W uogels 00044 OOOZ4 OOOOL 0009 - 0009 OOOti OOOZ 04ti OZti -Oct m m a. O" 094 816 �Ues • .4oui —fi- punojE) 8,k OO L SM pua6a� £ - 0 09 ti s£o r s£o* peon eMel ApueS - L L # 96Pu13 813 Tt,9Z£6 = S8 £la = 4OL-98 )P03 w13 = JeA18 Z60Z/846 Ueld Jean( -006 PUe `05 b6 - 3a :ueld 8666 AeW ZZ - Apn }S Aplij Jaddn OOOb6 W uolle3S OOOZL 00006 0009 0009 OOOti OOOZ OLb OZb OEb m CD 9i -Ott 09b elS �ue8 • }4aul —t- punojE) ■ &k ooh SM pua6a� 9 0 9b0' 0917 P801:1 931e-1 ApueS - LL # 96PP13 b8 9'b9ZE6 = MA E ;a = yoeaa )p0=1 w18 =1anaa Z60Z/84 6 Ueld Jean( -006 PUB '09'U-30 :Ueld 966 6 ABW ZZ - ApnjS A}Iuul Jaddn OOOtiL (4) uoi;els OOOZL 00006 0008 0009 00017 OOOZ OL17 OZ17 -Oct, m m o' 01717 094 els )iueg • jjaul --v punojE) t 21.100 L SM pua6a� 9 0 9170' 9170' 0917 aNe-1 ApueS io; uogoes ssojo 6uipunoq weaJ;sumO(I - ZLZ£6 uogoaS ZLZ£6 = S2i £39 = LM9aJ XJoA w13 = JGAIZj Z60Z/8/66 veld JeGA -006 PUe `09 `06 - 30 :ueld 8666 AeW ZZ - Apn }S Appi jaddfl (u) u01 1e ;S 000176 OOOZ6 00006 0009 0009 00017 OOOZ 0 0617 OZ17 0£17 m CD 0" a. lost, 0917 elS NUee • gau1 punag 2IA 00 6 SM pua6a� 9 50' 9170' + 990' 1< Z 6' �� 50' — LO' —� OL17 L66£6 L66£6 = M:J £3 9 = yoeab )P03 LU13 = JanRi ZLOZ /94 L ueld Je9A -OOL PUe `05 `OL - 34 :ueld 966 6 AeW ZZ - ApnjS Appi jeddn 000176 00OZ6 00006 W uogels 0008 0009 0004 OOOZ 0 0£17 4£17 01717 4174 m CD n� 0 044 4417 e }S Nueg 09 17 • gauk punaE) 21.100 6 SM pua6a� 40' 440' �� 490' T Z 6' �� 40' �� LO' 494 961£6 966£6 = S2i CIO = yoea�{ )PoJ w13 = Jani�{ Z60Z/84 6 Ueld JaaA-006 PUe b5 b 6 - 3a :Ueld 8666 AeW ZZ - Apnjg Al!uljl jaddn M uoge ;S 000ti6 00OZ6 00006 0009 0009 OOOti OOOZ 0 0£4 9£J7 Otiti 9ti4 m CD d 0 09ti 994 e3S NUe9 09ti :}aul --IV punojE ■ 21.100 6 SM Pua6a-j Z 90' 9ti0' �� 990' �� Z 6' 90' -- LO' 99ti 666£6 666£6 = S2l £19 = 143e921 >Poj w13 = Janlb ZLOZ /8 /L L Ueld J89A -00 L Pue b9 `0 L - 30 :ueld 966 L AaW ZZ - APnIS Alluul Jaddn HEC -RAS Plan: CE 10-100 Locations: User Defined 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 04054— .04 .05 — .04 I .09 + .03 460 Legend WS 100 YR F`0�7 ------- AIF- Ground 455 A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 445 c m 440 w 435 430 425 420 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—.03 —.12 .12 �K03 460 0 2 6 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 455 A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 m N W 435 430 425 420 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 455 Ineff • Bank Sta 450 445 c 440 ? w 435 430 425 420 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 = 106657 106657 .06 �— .12 .06 460 0 5 450 Legend WS 100 YR Ground • Ineff • Bank Sta i c m 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 ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 c a� w 430 420 410 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 .06 455 0.12 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 450 Ineff • Bank Sta 445 440 c ° 435 ? Lu 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 .045 03 07 �1 .07 455 0 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 450 Ineff • Bank Sta 445 �Z 440 c 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 470 .07 >�— .045 —�. .045 �� .03 - 'f 07 01 5 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 460 450 c 440 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 = 99708 99708 460 055 O — .045 �� — .03 .09 07 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A, Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 - a� Lu 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 460 .05 �— .045 — .03 .09 .07 4 Legend 5 WS 100 YR ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c o ` _ 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 = 97919 97919 455 .07 05 —.1 07 10I1045 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 450 A Ineff • Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 _ a� 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 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97792 .07 '� .05 . � '045 —��— .1 .07 455 1 0 5 Legend Ground i Ineff 450 Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 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 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS =96997 96997 460 .09 — • 12 0 .045—+—.1—+—.05—+—.08 07 5 Legend Ground Ineff s Bank Sta 450 440 c m 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 455 07 12 '�— .07 O r 06 5 Legend WS 100 YR N Ground 450 Ineff • Bank Sta 445 440 c 435 w 430 425 420 415 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) (4) uolie3S 00046 OOOZ6 00006 0009 0009 0004 OOOZ 564 OZ4 8Z4 -Oct, m m 0 x 8E4 044 elg:ueg geul punaE t 2V. 00 6 SM pua6a� 8 0 840' 8E0' +_ 940' - Z 6' T LO 094 69££6 68EE6 = Sb Ela = yoea�l V03 43 = Jan2i Z60Z /56/9 GA[IOa}l3 pa1OaLOO yea,, q06 PUe `09 b6 'Ueld 8666 ABA ZZ - �(Pn }S �( ;lul l aadd� (11) uollelS 00044 OOM 00004 0008 0009 0004 OOOZ 044 a OZ4 0£4 m CID m o. 044 054 elS NUee • }}au1 —v — punojE) t 2llk 00 4 SM pua6a-1 £ 0 094 5£0' � 5£0' Zl aNe-1 ApueS jol uoiloas ssao 6uipunoq weailsdn - L6Z£6 u01309S L6Z£6 = SU £3 a = yoeaU Yd03 w13 = JanRi Z60Z /56/9 anll39}}3 P9109JJOO aeaA 004 PUB `05 b6 ueld 966 6 AeW ZZ - APnjS Aplil jaddn O0Oti6 M uoRe3S OOOZ6 00006 0009 0009 OOOV OOOZ 06b OZ4 0£b In m _ m `m a. 0" 09b e3S NUes • gaul —f- punao UA 006 SM pua6a- E - OL 09 4 9E0' ' � 9E0' peon a)le-1 ApueS - L6 # 96pu9 218 9'ti9ZE6 =_S21 £la = 4Oe921 V03 w13 = Jan2i Z 60Z/96/9 9n1I3943 P9109JJOO J89A 00 � PUB '09 '06 Ueld 866 � AeW ZZ - ApnjS Al! up _L jaddn 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 .045 460 pr 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 m 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 = 93212 Section 93212 - Downstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake 045 I L .045 460 01- 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground i Ineff • Bank Sta 450 440 c 0 CD 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 �F .045 0 05 5 Legend WS 100 YR ■ Ground Ineff • Bank Sta 460 450 c 440 io A? Lu 430 420 s 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 • Bank Sta 455 450 c 0 Lu 445 440 435 430 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 �F .045 O .05 2 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff 460 Bank Sta 455 450 c 0 Li 445 440 435 430 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) li 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 �"0�4 P t 04— .05 — .04 .09 + .03 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A 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 ■ Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 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 = 107964 107964 05 .1 .06 Legend WS 100 YR 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 = 106657 106657 F .12 .06 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 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 = 105936 105936 12 .06 9 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 8000 9000 )pper 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 10.12 5 .06 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • 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. O � .045 .03 - —� .07 r Legend WS 100 YR Ground A Ineff • Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 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 = 101428 101428 — .045 T O 1 .045 03 .07— }5 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 Legend WS 100 YR Ground 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 — .045 - .03 .09 07 Legend WS 100 YR Ground i Ineff • Bank Sta 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 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 = 98884 98884 — .05 nN .045 — .03-- .09 07 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 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 97919 97919 �F .05 1 0 . �_ .045 —+—.1 — — .07 5 6/15/2012 0 .07 7 4000 6000 8000 10000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR E Ground 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 = 97792 .05 --� 1 0 1 045 — .1 -- -1- .07 101- .07 5 3 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend Ground Ineff • Bank Sta )peer Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Plan: 10, 50, and 100 Year Post - Project 6/15/2012 River = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 96997 96997 ��— .12,0 .045.1— .05.08 — � 07 5 Legend ■ Ground i 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 = 93940 93940 -.07 �-- .12 --�— .07— �. � .06 5 Legend WS 100 YR Ground A 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 —+ .035 014 .045 5 Legend WS 100 YR N 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 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) ;peer Trinity Study - 22 May 1998 Flan: 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 —0 Ground A 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 Legend WS 100 YR 0 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 fiver = Elm Fork Reach = ef3 RS = 93212 Section 93212 - Downstream bounding cross section for Sandy Lake Legend WS 100 YR -N 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 = 93197 93197 .05 -F .12 065 .045 O 05 5 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR —a- Ground Ineff • Bank Ste 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 �� .12 065 .045 O 05 2 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR M Ground i 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 = 93191 93191 05 — 065 .045 0 05 2 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Legend WS 100 YR Ground i Ineff • Bank Sta 14000 HEC -RAS Plan: DE - FW Locations: User Defined Plan: CE -FW Locations: User Defined HEC -RAS Plan: PostProiect-FW Locations: User Defined r r,„ r 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): N 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). ❑ LOMB: 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 1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Community No. Community Name State Map No. Panel No. Effective Date Example: 480301 City of Katy TX 48473C 0005D 02/08/83 480287 Harris County TX 48201 C 0220G 09/28/90 480170 City of Coppell TX 48113C 0155J 08/23/01 2. a. Flooding Source: Elm Fork of the Trinity River b. Types of Flooding: N Riverine ❑ Coastal ❑ Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH) ❑ Alluvial fan ❑ Lakes ❑ Other (Attach Description) 3. Project 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) N Physical Change N Improved Methodology /Data ® Regulatory Floodway Revision ❑ Base Map Changes ❑ Coastal Analysis N Hydraulic Analysis ❑ Hydrologic Analysis ❑ Corrections ❑ Weir -Dam Changes ❑ Levee Certification ❑ Alluvial Fan Analysis ❑ Natural Changes N 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: CI Channelization ❑ Levee /Floodwall ❑ Bridge/Culvert ❑ Dam ❑ Fill ❑ Other (Attach Description) 6.. ❑ 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 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 or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. F me: 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): r Date: As the community official responsib a 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, CFM 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: Date: /( 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 Ensure the forms that 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 * �• W »t ' ................... JACOB LES 6" 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 %- Arinual- 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 regional, 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 houndnry *Proposed /Revised elevations must tie -into 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) Fill Name: Plan Name: * For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. 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 ground 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.' ?%-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 Natural Run Floodwav Run Datum File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Base Flood Plan FEMA.prj FW Dup Eff NAVD 88 File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Corrected Effective FEMA.prj FW Corrected Effecti NAVD 88 File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: File Name: Plan Name: FEMA.prj Post - Project Other - (attach description) Fill Name: Plan Name: * For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions. 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 ground 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.' ?%-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. 2. 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. 3. For LOMB 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. of all applicable regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 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.obrieneng.com I fti3.obrieneng.com Texas Firm ID # F-37581 Oklahoma Firm ID 4 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)