North Gateway-CS121029JONES Ei M ,iS QUR, INC.
Euvirna al il�q —services
29 October 2012
Mr. Joe Roberts
Emerus Holdings, Inc.
10077 Grogan's Mill Road, Suite 100
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Telephone: 281.292.2450
E -mail: joe.roberts @emerus.com
Re: Limited Wetlands Assessment
Approximately 6.1 Acres of Land
Northwest of the Intersection of State Highway 121 and Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Dallas County, Texas
Mr. Roberts:
Jones & Ridenour, Inc. (J &R) is pleased to submit the results of a Limited Wetlands Assessment
for the above- referenced tract of land (hereinafter referred to as the Site).
Introduction:
The purpose of this informal assessment is to attempt to identify areas on -site that appear to
exhibit physical characteristics typical of jurisdictional Wetlands that are Waters of the United
States and/or jurisdictional Other Waters of the United States (e.g. certain creeks, certain ponds).
J &R has performed this Limited Wetlands Assessment by physically exploring the Site,
searching for indicators of the presence or absence of hydrophytic (water- loving) vegetation,
wetlands hydrology, and hydric soils, as well as other physical characteristics. In addition, AR
has reviewed readily available, published information, as well as historical photographs,
referenced hereafter.
Limitations:
While a formal Preliminary Wetlands Determination was not conducted, knowledge gained from
conducting such studies was utilized during the assessment. As such, U.S. Army Corps of
Jones & Ridenour, Inc.
2000 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 61X1
P.O. Box 494
Arlington,] X 76006
Dcnison, TX 75021
Phone: 817.303-2111
Phone 903.464.9055
I
Fax: 817.8002112
Fax: r)3A63.1361
Engineers ( USACE) Wetland Determination Data Forms were not completed for areas
considered potential jurisdictional wetlands however, potential jurisdictional wetlands were not
identified on Site, and USACE Wetland Determination Data Forms are not typically completed
for creeks or ponds.
It should be understood that only the USACE can make the final jurisdictional wetlands
determination, including the type of permit, if any, that may be required prior to development of
potentially jurisdictional areas.
AR's observations, findings, and opinions must not be considered as scientific certainties, but
solely as opinions based on our professional judgment concerning the significance of the limited
data gathered during the course of the project. Further, the services herein shall in no way be
construed, designed, or intended to be relied upon as legal interpretation or advice.
Limited Wetlands Assessment:
J &R biologist Mr. Lance C. Jones observed the somewhat open, irregularly- shaped Site on 17
October 2012, following periods of rainfall in the area. An aerial exhibit and survey identifying
Site boundaries were previously provided by Mr. Brent L. Murphree, P.E. with Dowdey,
Anderson & Associates Inc. A small drainage located on the eastern portion of the Site was
found to extend in a southerly direction through an upland, improved, pasture, to point where it
enters two 4' x 6' box culverts under SH 121.
The drain originates off Site to the north where it meanders through a subdivision and is charged
by existing outfall structures. It enters the Site through a small, narrow, riparian corridor which
extends in a relatively straight, north -south direction. Overstory vegetation observed within the
on -site, small, narrow, riparian corridor of the drainage was found to include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Osage -orange (Maclura pomifera), cottonwood (Populus deltoides),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and cedar elm (Ulmus
crassifolia). Understory vegetation along the banks of the drainage within the small, narrow,
riparian corridor includes mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), coralberry (Symphoricarpos
orbiculatus), saw greenbrier (Smilax bona -nox), poison -ivy (Toxicodnedron radicans), gum
bumelia (Bumelia lanuginosa), soapberry (Sapindus saponaria) and Carolina snailseed vine
(Cocculus carolinus). Outside and surrounding the small, narrow, riparian corridor is an upland,
improved pasture which consisted of species such as scattered mesquite and eastern red cedar,
with wooly croton (Croton capitatus), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sunflower (Helianthus
debilis), hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), broomweed (Amphiachyris dracunculoides), KR bluestem (Bothriochloa
ischaemum), snow on the prairie (Euphorbia bicolor), gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and
white prairie aster (Aster ericoides) covering the ground.
The lower end of the drainage at the point where it enter the two 4' x 6' box culverts was found
to contain very shallow incised banks and/or little or no definition. The drainage appears to be
F]
functioning as an ephemeral drain as flow was not observed during the Site visit. Some ponding
was observed; this ponding was primarily due to recent rainfall in the area. The Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) was found to average approximately 5 feet in width. There appears to be
a significant fluctuation of water level within the drainage. J &R believes water flow can best be
described as frequent rapid increases during rainfall events followed by low flow and brief
inundation periods and fast decreases. Fluctuations in streamflow and channelization of storm
runoff have likely increased due to urbanization of the watershed upstream of and along SH 121.
Review of the 1975 aerial photograph contained within the Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas
revealed that the Site then consisted of a mostly open pasture with a narrowly wooded area on the
eastern portion of the Site oriented in a north south direction, very similar to present day
conditions. The small ephemeral drain on Site is neither discernable nor depicted on the aerial
photograph. The narrow wooded area appeared to extend into a large wooded area to the south
where no connection with Denton Creek was noticeable on this resource. No additional, on -site
aquatic features are depicted or discernable on the aerial photograph.
In some agreement with the above - referenced resource, the 1959 (revised / inspected 1981),
USGS, Carrollton, Texas, 7.5 minute, quadrangle (topographic) map illustrates the Site as open,
undeveloped land with a small wooded area near where the southern boundary of the Site would
be. The present day drainage is not depicted on this resource. While consistent with the above
resource this resource may identify the drain location by narrow contour lines that would favor
some type of drainage just to the north of the present day northern Site boundary. However,
there are no contour lines depicted on Site, and therefore, connectivity to any downstream
tributary is unclear. No additional aquatic features are illustrated as being located on -site on this
resource.
Now, after reviewing the above resources, J &R ordered historical aerials from 1942 through
2008 to better understand the drainage and to investigate and see if there was any historical
connectivity to Denton Creek or any downstream tributary system, as with present day resources
connectivity was not apparent. The two aerials that tell the story of the drain are the 1942 and
1958 photos. In the 1942 aerial. photograph, the small, narrow, wooded corridor is shown as it is
in present day and as described in the previous resource reviews; it extends into a large wooded
area to the south. This area has an apparent gap (open field) between it and Denton Creek to the
south, however, in the middle of the large wooded area on the eastern portion, and along Denton
Tap Road, there appears to be two areas where the runoff is routed under Denton Tap Road in an
easterly direction and eventually enters Denton Creek to the east. Farming practices have
apparently made that drainage pattern relatively straight in nature with it appearing to have been
manipulated so as the farmer maximized his land to full potential. That being said, the 1958
aerial photograph shows the drainage (east of Denton Tap Road) back to its original flow pattern,
as the farmer had apparently stopped maintaining it at some point within the 16 year span. The
southernmost drain exiting the large wooded area then south of the Site, under Denton Tap Road,
is apparent by way of some type of discoloration (white area) that may indicate some type of
plunge pool below what one could assume to be a culverted area under Denton Tap Road. The
two previously described aerials do indicate that there was historical connectivity to a
downstream tributary system, likely making the present day, on Site, ephemeral drainage
considered jurisdictional by the USACE as a Waters of the United States.
Conclusions:
Based on the physical nature of the small on -Site ephemeral drainage which extends approximately
500 feet across the Site, and that this drainage does appear to have always connected to
downgradient reaches of Denton Creek (As indicated through historical aerial photography), the
feature does appear to be of the type that would fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE as an
Other Waters of the United States. It is the current policy of the Fort Worth District of the USACE
that they do claim jurisdiction over aquatic features of this type.
Based on observations made during the Site visit, the OHWM associated with the small potentially
jurisdictional, apparently ephemeral Other Water of the United States averages approximately 5 feet
in width and extends through the Site, to the south, approximately 500 feet (0.06 acres).
Based on the Site visit and a review of readily available, published information, J&R did not
identify any additional on -site areas exhibiting characteristics or features indicative of Wetlands
that are Waters of the United States or Other Waters of the United States.
Developmental options typically consist of avoidance (where no correspondence with the
USACE would be required), minimization of impacts (as described hereafter), or permitting
(possibly including compensatory mitigation).
Should avoidance to what appears to be an Other Water of the United States be the desired
developmental approach, impacts (e.g. grading, filling, ditching) would need to occur outside the
associated jurisdictional boundaries. This line would be the OHWM for aquatic features such as
intermittent and/or ephemeral streams. Given the characteristics of the ephemeral drain, for a
practical and workable approach, and in an effort to ensure avoidance to the apparently
jurisdictional channel bottoms, the tops of banks could be treated as the jurisdictional boundaries.
Alternatively, project design (including specifying construction methods) and the incorporation
of controls could possibly prove successful in avoiding the channel bottom. The use of silt
fences often helps prohibit impacts to jurisdictional areas and/or adjoining buffers.
Under Nationwide Permit 14 (designed to cover linear transportation projects), impacts which are
less than one -tenth of an acre may qualify under Nationwide Permit 14, where no Preconstruction
Notification (permit application) to the USACE would be required. Certain criteria (such as that
there are no impacts to Special Aquatic Sites (e.g. wetlands, riffle and pool complexes)),
conditions (e.g. that the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the crossing),
and general conditions must be met. Regarding the width of the fill being limited to the
minimum necessary for the crossing, this is typically achicvcd by crossing the stream (the
drainage) in a more -or -less perpendicular manner. Additionally, "appropriate measures must be
taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent
El
practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are
necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary
fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected
high flows. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to
preconstruction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as
appropriate."
Nationwide Permit 14 is unique in that it may be used for more than one crossing, with
thresholds applying to impacts at each, individual crossing. This would often be the case where a
road crosses different streams, or different roads cross the same stream (where each crossing is a
single and complete linear project). It has been J&R's experience that the USACE might
consider multiple crossings part of the same project when a single road avoidably crosses the
same stream in more than one location.
Applicable impact(s) to greater than one -tenth of an acre, yet less than one -half of an acre, to on-
site, jurisdictional aquatic features (e.g. streambed), and/or impact(s) which do not meet the
required criteria, may qualify for permitting under Nationwide Permit 14. In this case, a
Preconstruction Notification (and the subsequent acquisition of a permit) is required prior to
impact(s) that might affect jurisdictional areas. As a condition of the permit, compensatory
mitigation (i.e. creation, enhancement, restoration, and/or preservation of Wetlands that are
Waters of the United States / Other Waters of the United States) is most often required.
Under Nationwide Permit 39 (redesigned to sometimes allow for commercial and institutional
developments), cumulative impacts to not greater than one -half acre of non -tidal Waters of the
United States, including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed, unless for
intermittent and ephemeral stream beds this 300 linear foot limit is waived in writing by the
District Engineer, may be authorized by this permit. Under Nationwide Permit 39, the permittee
must submit a Preconstruction. Notification (PCN) to the USACE prior to commencing the
activity. Therefore, and to reiterate, when utilizing NWP 39, a PCN (and the subsequent
acquisition of a permit) will be required prior to impacts that might affect jurisdictional areas.
As a condition of the permit, and depending on variables such as the type of impact, extent of the
impact, the nature of the aquatic feature(s) being impacted, in addition to other factors, mitigation
may be required. Additionally, as with all Nationwide Permits, certain criteria and associated
general conditions must be met.
In order to comply with TCEQ 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions for Nationwide
Permits, when utilizing a Nationwide Permit, the contractor should utilize at least one Best
Management Practice from each of the applicable categories of on -site water quality
management. For Nationwide Permits 14 and 39, this consists of all three categories - erosion
control, sedimentation control, and post- construction total suspended solids control.
Additionally, for Nationwide Permit 39, the USACE will copy the TCEQ on all authorizations
for impacts of greater than 300 linear feet of intermittent and ephemeral streams. Attached, for
your convenience, is a copy of the reissued / revised water quality certification conditions.
5
Impacts resulting in fill, and which do not meet the conditions of one of the many Nationwide
Permits, typically require the more involved Individual Permitting process. In this case, a permit
application package to, and subsequent acquisition of a permit from, the USACE is required prior
to impacts that might affect jurisdictional areas. As a condition of the permit, compensatory
mitigation is most often required. Additionally, certain criteria and associated conditions must
be met. Individual Permits routinely require approximately one year to secure, and include a
public notice and commenting period.
Jones & Ridenour, Inc. will remain available to assist with fulfillment of the permitting process, if
that alternative is deemed necessary and so desired. Jones & Ridenour, Inc. appreciates the
opportunity to have been able to provide wetlands consulting services to Emerus Holdings, Inc. If
you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call the undersigned at
903.464.9055.
Sincerely,
Jones & Ridenour, Inc.
PiganccC. nes
Presiden / Ecologist
Attachments: TCEQ 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions for Nationwide Permits
Cc: Brent L. Murphree, P.E., Dowdy, Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Z
Attachment 2
401 Water QuaRty Certification Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Nationwide
Permits
Below are the 401 water quality certification conditions the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) added to the February 21, 2012 issuance of Nationwide Permits (NWP), as
described in the Federal Register (Vol. 77, No. 84, pages 10184 - 10290).
Additional information regarding these conditions, including descriptions of the best
management practices (BMPs), can be obtained from the TCEQ by contacting the 401
Coordinator, MC -15o, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711 -3087 or from the appropriate U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers district office.
LN
Disturbed areas must be stabilized to prevent the introduction of sediment to adjacent wetlands
or water bodies during wet weather conditions (erosion). At Ieast one of the following BMPs
must be maintained and remain in place until the area has been stabilized for NWPs 3, 6, 7,12,
13,14,15,17, X8,19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49,
5o, 51, and 52. if the applicant does not choose one of the BMPs listed, an individual 401
certification is required. BMPs for lv'WP 52 apply only to land -based impacts from attendant
features.
o Temporary Vegetation
o Mulch
o Interceptor Swale
o Erosion Control Compost
o Compost Filter Socks
II. Sedimentation Control
o Blankets /Matting
o Sod
o Diversion Dike
o Mulch Filter Socks
Prior to project initiation, the project area must be isolated from adjacent wetlands and water
bodies by the use of BMPs to confine sediment. Dredged material shall be placed in such a
manner that prevents sediment runoff into water in the state, including wetlands. Water bodies
can be isolated by the use of one or more of the required BMPs identified for sedimentation
control. These BMP's must be maintained and remain in place until the dredged material is
stabilized. At least one of the following BMPs must be maintained and remain in place until the
area has been stabilized for NWPs 3, 6, 7,12,13,14,15,17,18,19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, and 52. If the applicant does not choose
one of the BMPs listed, an individual 401 certification is required. BMPs for NWP 52 apply only
to land -based impacts from attendant features.
o Sand Bag Berm
o Silt Fence
o Triangular Filter Dike
o Rock Berm
o Hay Bale Dike
o Brush Berms
Revixd AprII g, 2012 Page 10 3
Attaclment 2
4oi Water Quality Certification Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Nationwide
Permits
o Stone Outlet Sediment Traps
o Erosion Control Compost
o Compost Filter Socks
o Sediment Basins
o Mulch Filter Socks
After construction has been completed and the site is stabilized, total suspended solids (TSS)
loadings shall be controlled by at least one of the following BMPs for NWPs 12, 14,17, 18, 21, 29,
31, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 50,. 5t, and 52. If the applicant does not choose one of the BMPs
listed, an individual 401 certification is required. BMPs for NWP 52 apply only to land -based
impacts from attendant features. Runoff from bridge decks has been exempted from the
requirement for post construction TSS controls.
o Retention /Irrigation Systems
o Extended Detention Basin
o Vegetative Filter Strips
o Grassy Swales
o Erosion Control Compost
o Compost Filter Socks
o Constructed Wetlands
o Wet Basins
• Vegetation lined drainage ditches
• Sand Filter Systems
• Mulch Filter Socks
• Sedimentation Chambers*
Only to be used when there is no space available for other approved BMPs.
Effluent from an upland contained disposal area shall not exceed a TSS concentration of goo
mg/L unless a site - specific TSS.lirnit, or a site specific correlation curve for turbidity
(nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)) versus (TSS) has been approved by TCEQ.
V NP 2% qQ 40, 42, 4 & dd 50 51 and tit
The Corps will copy the TCEQ on all authorizations for impacts of greater than 300 linear feet of
intermittent and ephemeral streams.
Reviwd A* 5, 2oi2 Paje 2 of 3
Attachment a
401 Water Quality Certification Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Nationwide
Permits
VI, NWP a and 41
The Corps will copy the TCEQ on all authorizations for impacts greater than 500 linear feet in
length of ephemeral, intermittent, perennial streams or drainage ditches.
VII. NWP g6
The Corps will copy the TCEQ on all authorizations for discharges greater than the 5o cubic yard
limit or boat ramps greater than 20 feet in width.
VIII AU NWPs g&a-Vt NWP a
These NMs are not authorized for use in coastal dune swales in Texas.
Revised Aprils, 2012 PW 3 of 3