CRDC 1402-CS140429engineers
surveyors
landscape architects
t cnAnneL imrKuVEMENTS
CONCEPT STUDY
6m Id
or
Registered by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers; No. F-230
Registered by the Texas Board of Professional Surveyors No. 100116-00
Woodridge Channel Improvements — Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Understanding & Location
stn
teague nail & perkins
Project Understanding — The Woodridge channel has a history of flooding and poses chronic
maintenance issues for the City. The purpose of this concept study is to identify improvement alternatives
that could reduce or eliminate each of these issues. The focus of this study is to identify methods for
completely enclosing the channel and provide Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC's). This
report is intended to aid the City's evaluation of improvement alternatives and whether they are viable.
Project Location — Woodridge Channel traverses the Woodridge Subdivision located southwest of the
MacArthur/Sandy Lake Blvd. intersection. The subject portion of stream runs parallel to Sandy Lake Rd.
along its south side, from MacArthur Blvd. to approximately 750' (ft) west. Woodridge Channel is an
unstudied stream per FEMA's FIS (Panel: 481 13CO155 J, Aug. 23, 2001) and the City -Wide Storm
Water Management Study (Jan. 1991).
Existing Conditions
Analysis Methods — Peak discharges for this study were developed using a detailed HEC -HMS (v.3.5)
model for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100 -year storm (see Table 1). The watershed is considered to
be in its ultimate developed condition for the purposes of this study. Hydraulic computations for this
study are approximate in nature, and are based on aerial survey data, record drawings, and field
observations. No topographic field survey was performed for this study.
Results — The existing channel is trapezoidal in shape, vegetated, and generally has capacity to convey
a 25 -yr storm with 1' (ft) of freeboard. The downstream end of the project is a 2-8x6 MBC at
MacArthur Blvd. This culvert operates under inlet control and currently has a 25 -yr capacity as well.
Environmental Permitting — An environmental assessment was performed as part of this study which
indicates the existing channel would be classified as Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. by the United
States Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE). Improvements to enclose or armor the channel will require an
Individual Permit and associated mitigation in accordance with Section 404 (Clean Water Act). Onsite
mitigation would not meet project goals, meaning purchasing mitigation credits from a USACE approved
mitigation bank will likely be required. The anticipated cost for mitigation is $165,000.
Table 1: Peak Discharge Summary
Node
Area
4DESIGN
100 -Yr Existing'
(= Ultimate)
�_
Woodridge Plansi3l
2
5
10
25
50
100
Comments
ID(2)
ac.
25-yr/50-yr;(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
DP -1
274.4
827/925
441
636
830
1,044
1,211
1,391
@ MacArthur
DP -2
295.1
971/1087
461
664
869
1,094
1,270
1,464
@ School
DP -3
315.0
1169/1310
1 478
1 689
902
1,140
1,329
1,531
1@ Denton Creek
MSCS Unit Hydrograph, TR -55 Tc's, Composite CN, Frequency Storm (TP-40/TP-35)
(2)Node name in HEC -HMS model for key Design Points. See comments for location.
(3) Record drawings for Woodridge Channel; in association with the Woodridge Subdivision
Improvements
The following paragraphs summarize the improvements necessary for each improvement alternative. The
limits of improvements are shown on Exhibits 2 and 3 of Appendix A. Environmental mitigation costs are
the same for all options and are reflected in the OPCC's listed below.
Option 1: Box Culvert Enclosure (100 -YR Design) — This option entails constructing 750 LF of 2-9x6 MBC,
and 1 10 LF of 1-6x6 RCB. The 1-6x6 is needed for additional capacity at MacArthur, and may be
suitable for boring and jacking. The culvert system would be backfilled to create relatively flat ground
Woodridge Channel Improvements — Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west) +*** t n
feague null & Perkins
along Sand Lake Rd., making it suitable for a linear park. The anticipated construction cost is
$1,700,000 (rounded), including environmental mitigation. No property acquisition is anticipated.
Option 2: Con/Span Enclosure (100 -YR Design) — This option entails constructing 750 LF of 25'x6'
Con/Span (bridge structure), and 1 10 LF of 1-6x6 RCB. The 1-6x6 is needed for additional capacity at
MacArthur, and may be suitable for boring and jacking. The Con/Span system would be backfilled to
create relatively flat ground along Sand Lake Rd., making it suitable for a linear park. The anticipated
construction cost is $2,200,000, including environmental mitigation. No property acquisition is
anticipated.
Table 2: Improvement Alternative Summary
Improvement
Alternative
Description
Design Storm
Construction Cost
Existing
Vegetated Trapezoid Channel
25i1i
N/A
Option 1
Box Culvert Enclosure
100
$1.7 M
Option 2
Con/Span Enclosure
100
$ 2.2 M
(1) The MacArthur culvert has 25 -yr capacity with freeboard and 50 -yr capacity with no freeboard.
Conclusion
The subject reach of Woodridge Channel is undersized and requires chronic maintenance. Each one of
the options presented above will address these concerns by: providing 100 -yr design capacity,
effectively eliminating the need for channel maintenance, and enhancing the aesthetic of the Sandy Lake
Rd. corridor. Option 1 (Box Culvert) is anticipated to provide a significant cost savings and possibly a
shorter construction time. The cost of Option 2 (Con/Span) is significantly higher, but could be reduced if
soil conditions permit less foundation work than anticipated. The Con/Span offers more room for
maintenance access and better aesthetic at the opening.
Concept Drainage Study
for
Woodridge Channel
Prepared For:
T H 6 • C I T Y • O F
COFFELL
City of Coppell
265 Parkway Avenue
Coppell, TX 75019
Prepared By:
^a,
�K tnp
teague nail & perkins
Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc.
1100 Macon Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
*: r►�
/ KYLE J. DYKES
.................................
' 99378
� lSS�O1VAL EN�'�
April 2014
DI 4p� Zol`/
Woodridge Channe I Improvements — Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west) ittn
p
teague nail & perkins
Contents
ProjectUnderstanding.........................................................................................................1
Project Location & Background...........................................................................................
2
Hydrology............................................................................................................................
2
ExistingConditions..............................................................................................................
2
Hydrologic Parameter Methodologies...................................................................................
2
Hydraulics...........................................................................................................................
3
Summaryof Analysis Methods..............................................................................................
3
Improvement Alternatives.....................................................................................................
4
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................
4
Appendices
APPENDIX A — EXHIBITS
o EXHIBIT 1: DRAINAGE AREA MAP
o EXHIBIT 2: OPTION 1 — BOX CULVERT ENCLOSURE
o EXHIBIT 3: OPTION 2 — CON/SPAN ENCLOSURE
APPENDIX B — HYDROLOGIC DATA
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) COMPUTATIONS
o CN CALCULATIONS
o HEC -HMS INPUT/OUTPUT
APPENDIX C — HYDRAULIC DATA
O CULVERTMASTER REPORT
O CONTECH BRIDGE TOOL REPORT (CON/SPAN)
O STORMCAD REPORT
APPENDIX D — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (excerpt only)
APPENDIX E — OPNIION'S OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (OPCC)
APPENDIX F — COMPACT DISK
o DRAINAGE STUDY REPORT (PDF)
o HEC -HMS DIGITAL MODEL
o HYDRAULIC MODELS
o RECORD DRAWINGS
o SHAPEFILES
o ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (PDF, complete)
o PANORAMIC IMAGES & RENDERING
Fort Worth � 1100 Macon Streeter Fort Worth, Texas 76102 � 817.336.5773 ^ Dallas - 17304 Preston Road, Suite 1340- Dallas, Texas 75252- 21A.461.9867
Denton- 1517 Centre Place Drive, Suite 320- Denton, Texas 76205 - 940.383.4177 +d0 Sherman - 200 North Travis Street, Suite 500 -Sherman, Texas 75090 - 903.870.1089
Registered by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, Firm No. F-230 - Registered by the Texas Board of Professional Surveyors, Firm No. 100116-00
Woodridge Channe I Improvements - Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west) *** t n
p
league nail & perkins
Project Understanding
Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. (TNP) was contracted by the City of Coppell to evaluate concept level
solutions to mitigate flood hazards and maintenance issues along a portion of Woodridge Channel. The
focus of this study is to identify methods for completely enclosing the channel and provide Opinions of
Probable Construction Cost (OPCC's). This report is intended to aid the City's evaluation of improvement
alternatives and whether they are viable.
Project Location & Background
Woodridge Channel traverses the Woodridge Subdivision located southwest of the MacArthur/Sandy
Lake Blvd. intersection. The subject portion of stream runs parallel to Sandy Lake Rd. along its south side,
from MacArthur Blvd. to approximately 750' (ft) west. Woodridge Channel is an unstudied stream per
FEMA's FIS (Panel: 4811 3C01 55 J, Aug. 23, 2001) and the City -Wide Storm Water Management Study
(Jan. 1991).
Hydrology
Existing Conditions
A hydrologic analysis has been prepared as part of this study. Hydrographs and peak discharges were
developed using HEC -HMS (v.3.5), with parameters developed as described below. A summary of the
100 -year peak discharges is listed in Table 1. A digital copy of the model is included in Appendix E.
Hydrologic Parameter Methodologies
➢ Area — Drainage basins were delineated using 2' (ft) interval contours (provided by City), and
then adjusted based on record drawings for Woodridge Subdivision and field verification. Four
(4) sub -basins were delineated to properly account for watershed timing and to develop peak
discharges at key design points along the stream (See Exhibit 1).
➢ Time of Concentration (Tc) — The longest flow path for each sub -basin was delineated based
on topography, aerial photos, record drawings, and City GIS data. Actual flow times were
computed using the TR -55 methodology; consisting of sheet flow, shallow flow, pipe flow, and
channel flow.
➢ Composite Curve Number — Composite curve numbers were weighted by area based on
hydrologic soil type and landuse. In general the curve number values used reflect l/4 acre
residential lots (SCS TR -55, Table 2.2). The following values were used: Soil Type A (61), B (75),
C (83), D (87).
➢ Percent Impervious — Composite curve numbers were weighted based on area and landuse.
Impervious surfaces are accounted for by the composite curve numbers, therefore the separate
impervious value field in the model is zero for all sub -basins.
➢ Soil Type — Drainage basins were overlaid on the NRCS soil survey for Dallas County for the
purpose of calculating the percentage of each hydrologic soil group (A, B, C, and D).
➢ Routing — The Muskingum Cunge method was used for channel routing. By defining the channel
shape, roughness, slope, and length, the HMS computations are able to account for timing delay
of the flood wave, as well as approximate valley storage and associated peak attenuation.
Computation summaries for the above parameters are provided in Appendix B.
Woodridge Channe I Improvements — Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west) tnp
teague null 8 Perkins
Parameter tabulations are included in Appendix B and a summary of hydrologic parameters is provided
in Table 1, below. A summary of the resulting 100 -year peak discharges is provided in Table 2 and a
digital copy of the HEC -HMS model is included in Appendix E (compact disk).
Table 1: Hydrologic Parameter Summary
Table 2: Peak Discharge Summary
Node
ID
Existing
Area
Area
(Ultimate)
25
(cfs)
Tc
Lag
ID
194.6
CN
% I p
497
637
(ac)
910
(min)
(min)
DA -1
194.6
84.6
0 25
_15
DA -2
�DA-3
79.8
7_6.4
0 20
12
DA -3
20.7
83.4
0 10
6
DA -4
19.9
84.2
0 10
6
Table 2: Peak Discharge Summary
Node
ID
Area
ac.
4DESIGN
Woodridge Plans
(cfs)
100 -Yr Existing'
2 5 10
(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
(Ultimate)
25
(cfs)
50 100
(cfs) (cfs)
Comments
DA -1
194.6
--
350
497
637
792
910
1,038
DA -2
79.8
--
101
158
215
_280
330
385
DA -3
20.7
--
48
71
89
111
127
144
DA -4
19.9
--
48
70
88
109
1 124
140
DP -1
274.4
827/925
441
636
830
1,044
1,211
1,391
@ MacArthur
DP -2
295.1
971/1087
461
664
869
1,094
1,270
1,464
_
@ Universal Academy
DP -3
315.0
1169/1310
1478
689
902
1,140
1,329
1,531
@ Denton Creek
1 SCS Unit Hydrograph, TR -55 Tc's, Composite CN, Frequency Storm (TP-40ITP-35)
Hydraulics
Due to the conceptual nature of this study, . Digital models and model summaries (HEC -RAS, and PDF's)
are provided in Appendix C (compact disk).
Summary of Analysis Methods
➢ Existing Conditions — FlowMaster (Bentley Systems, Inc.) was used to calculate normal depth for
the channel. CulvertMaster (Bentley Systems, Inc.) was used to calculate culvert headwater.
CulvertMaster utilizes FHWA culvert hydraulic equations to determine Inlet/Outlet control,
mannings equation for normal depth tailwater, and the broad crested weir equation for
roadway overtopping. The existing A -10x8 driveway culverts have more capacity than the
bounding earthen channel and therefore are governed by outlet control. The 2-8x6 MacArthur
culverts operate in inlet control and have approximately 1,050 cfs capacity with 1' (ft) of
freeboard to the lowest adjacent top of curb.
➢ Option 1, Box Culvert Enclosure — This scenario was analyzed using the storm drain modeling
software, StormCAD@ (Bentley Systems, Inc.). Conduit links were used to represent each unique
section (i.e. box shape, size, slope, number of barrels, etc...). Hydraulic grade lines were
calculated for the entire project reach, with headlosses at transition points.
➢ ConlSpan Channel with Existing Culverts — The existing culverts were analyzed using
CulvertMaster. The Con/Span segments between the existing culverts were analyzed with the
Woodridge Channe I Improvements — Concept Study (MacArthur to 750' west) *** t n
p
teague nail & perkins
BSH-Tool using downstream CulvertMaster headwater as the controlling tailwater. The 2-8x6
MBC and proposed 1-6'x6' RCB at MacArthur were calculated using CulvertMaster assuming one
(1) foot of freeboard to the approximate back of curb elevation of 454.0.
Improvement Alternatives
➢ Option 1: Box Culvert Enclosure (100 -YR Design) — This option entails constructing 750 LF of 2-
9x6 MBC, and 110 LF of 1-6x6 RCB. The 1-6x6 is needed for additional capacity at
MacArthur, and may be suitable for boring and jacking. The culvert system would be backfilled
to create relatively flat ground along Sand Lake Rd., making it suitable for a linear park.
The anticipated construction cost is $1,700,000 (rounded), including environmental mitigation. No
property acquisition is anticipated.
➢ Option 2: Con/Span Enclosure (100 -YR Design) — This option entails constructing 750 LF of
25'x6' Con/Span (bridge structure), and 110 LF of 1-6x6 RCB. The 1-6x6 is needed for
additional capacity at MacArthur, and may be suitable for boring and jacking. The Con/Span
system would be backfilled to create relatively flat ground along Sand Lake Rd., making it
suitable for a linear park.
The anticipated construction cost is $2,200,000, including environmental mitigation. No property
acquisition is anticipated.
Table 2: Improvement Alternative Summary
Improvement
Description
Design Storm
Construction Cost
Alternative
Existing
Vegetated Trapezoid Channel
25i1i
N/A
Option 1
Box Culvert Enclosure
100
$1.7 M
Option 2
Con/Span Enclosure
100
$ 2.2 M
(l) The MacArthur culvert has 25 -yr capacity with freeboard and 50 -yr capacity with no freeboard.
Conclusion
The subject reach of Woodridge Channel is undersized and requires chronic maintenance. Each one of
the options presented above will address these concerns by: providing 100 -yr design capacity,
effectively eliminating the need for channel maintenance, and enhancing the aesthetic of the Sandy Lake
Rd. corridor. Option 1 (Box Culvert) is anticipated to provide a significant cost savings and possibly a
shorter construction time. The cost of Option 2 (Con/Span) is significantly higher, but could be reduced if
soil conditions permit less foundation work than anticipated. The Con/Span offers more room for
maintenance access and better aesthetic at the opening.
APPENDIX A - EXHIBITS
o EXHIBIT 1: DRAINAGE AREA MAP
o EXHIBIT 2: OPTION 1 - BOX CULVERT ENCLOSURE
o EXHIBIT 3: OPTION 2 - CON/SPAN ENCLOSURE
—� �, IIIb+ •41� ;I•,•. '
•. �iAmt
N 1 A
a "M� N61'! lE�v.�
Okla 6;' I, IN =i
#r R 1-7
r tri
-A
` r err, 3. ?
DA -3
20.7 AC
`" a
U - DA -4
19.9 AC ,*
Legend
- Design Point
QDrainage Area
Minor Contour (2ft)
z. Major Contour (1 Oft)
•1
. � _ a �.� � - r I '. � • . : z --' � � , . M
MAPLELEAF I N a Univerl
{.: W co Z 9f1 - f-_ ' , -„•rte., 7
= ♦' '►"� ` ° $ -. •! + 79.8 AC �� ?fir•. �, } ¢' 7 -� 1• �� Y _ - .v �y '.t P`"rtil�_
I it
Ir
- � ' .� - }� - _ - '�. �� ''rte..y, _� �%' `W, � ' �� ',� ®�`�••1��1 -! a �-• s s , I � .. � _�I
�f� il.:is , ... J �/� �. __ - ,.p' �+K` _ J+I.yv. ~'�. � �• ��� • R-- ' �-�r-�'; �. 1:. •I �,yy/ �I + '1.
� .- -1 r'7 'l.y✓' yr5"� /, .�- �yfi �,� .i ��� J I I .f ,I ! .`'�T �1j
V_
. -+J ; r J, n '} r 1..,, ^�1 P Com✓,. ��-I^ '' % • • . �. r. / ” iw.''J
/-, `v ►f' - / r• ) nr�,,1. r '�'+ ..•ri v_4 -:y M.d" •YiO'o yam- ted.. ,r..�.
f7r is f r
- - ,-_ ,�� './,�/ � .%•yE%JJIS"i�, `r�- "r• � �&=�: ,:i\ ,••�' :•.c�. .n r�� ', ��� � - b. �1� �.f \ r �' ` til �+. � � i• "'-•__ - --- ---_
a � !��a.,f / i J - J - r � - � •1 .- P�:'•tr�� ,1 ' ' `-� - . Iy1� � J J ` .'fir•_' � —�•,:� — �
+". •• _- • .�. �i`M � � � ") �,�. •J fes•• � ' •T;{� �; '.' _•rd + _ �^ _ �-''� _ ('F��1 `\ �.L. +�• �-. { r . i+^ �. � r
)` �, .i .� _� yy ". I ,:� - • ' r \ R� - w'. BIZ,, •
DA -1 \4•�. ;rr�'• ; y
194.6 AC
-- Woodridge
Subdivision
n __ ! .r �•♦ � '�,; Y�- f,;`o.. `�y} .dam ' ��� w+
i
Area
ID
Area
TUPELO DR'
Existing
EXHIBIT
1
2
Area CN % Imp.Tc
(ac) (min)
Lag
(min)
DA -1
194.6
84.6
0
25
15
DA -2
79.8
76.4
0
20
12
DA -3
20.7
83.4
0
10
6
DA -4
19.9
84.2
0
10
6
t
Node
Area
TUPELO DR'
100 -Yr Existing' ( = Ultimate)
EXHIBIT
1
2
':la� 4 J_Fif
10
iiil�
50
100
(2)
�. �FAL'CON LNC f�*
Woodridge Plans(3)
d a
ID
•.*, N) 0<
Node
Area
QDESIGN
100 -Yr Existing' ( = Ultimate)
EXHIBIT
1
2
5
10
25
50
100
(2)
Woodridge Plans(3)
Comments
ID
ac.
25-yr/50-yr; (cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
DP -1
274.4
827/925
441
636
830
11,044
1,211
1,391
@ MacArthur
DP -2
295.1
971/1087
461
664
869
1,094
1,270
1,464
@ School
DP -3
315.0
1 1169/1310
478
689
902
1,140
1,329
1,531
@Denton Creek
(') SCS Unit Hydrograph, TR -55 Tc's, Composite CN, Frequency Storm (TP-40/TP-35)
(2) Node name in HEC -HMS model for key Design Points; see Comments for location.
tnp
League Hall & perkins
0 250 500 1,000
♦
N 1 inch = 500 feet
City of Coppell, TX
EXHIBIT
1
Woodridge Channel Improvements -Drainage Study &Conceptual Design
COPPELL
' ' t7t o
"x✓� . ,
Drainage Area Map
- - - -- - - -1 t.. t, t
Ylei I"
u aii r
mapLegend
01
, I Exist Drainage Esmt
' 06Prop Box Culvert
t �• r, � � - � � Ili, J
�1 ` e.0 1 ` .•1 , 1 �, 1 ! .•` ,:t I � ... ate. -.1r p � � � ' I Y��.,
� C•
til
- � • t 11 1
i`
r t - l
,
r7
r•. 3 7 . ' % L`t: L tj 2-9MSC FNIR'z
2e��iB 1
`` r .. {', r l�A -E
-.11 t ; J i i , 4 :. •J r- :! . 'l. f .1< 11_— 1
CONCRETE TRANSITION
1-&-0 RCS
DGS®p STRUCTURE
`. k 'f_ r,. 1?Y' lays ',iii. (£�l "'u, .�; • i 1 �/�
:4F. ��` ,"F' ,� . •[f.59 M�'t
F.
77
I f .-1 • I,- - i tl 1, f 4
LiA��-
i
^/tnp
Teague nail & perkins
5 I L
OCO ^ oo noo
N 1 inch = 100 feet
City of Coppell, TX
EXHIBIT
2
T X E- C I T Y O F
Channel Improvements - Concept Drainage Study
CODDFT TWoodridge
�r= �I ILL
e ^ a; b 9 °
Option 1 - Box Culvert Enclosure
1 ,
11 1
I �I
AWL
oe
Vw
--------------------------
T
Lege
. ----------------------
Legend
— — — Exist Drainage Esmt
Prop Con Span
TOM '�—
_
- I I 112 CON SPAN TG iG\ISOTIOoN: SSS
BEAM ORME
\., 1 CUvIOLOSMRC? I
CONCRETE TRANMON/
6 RCH
DROP STRUCTUR I _ r 1
:i
!i l` -------------------
t npM
teague null 81 Perkins
O 5 GO v100 l]Goo
Aaw I
1 inch = 100 feet
N
City of Coppell, TX
EXHIBIT
3
T x i C I T Y - O F
Woodridge Channel Improvements - Concept Drainage Study
COPPELL
x
`x ° ° 4
Option 2 - Con/Span Enclosure
APPENDIX B - HYDROLOGIC DATA
o TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) COMPUTATIONS
o CN CALCULATIONS
o HEC -HMS INPUT/OUTPUT
Woodridge Channel
Time of Concentration Calculations
Based on NRCS Publication "TR55 - Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds"
Sheet Flow Component
Shallow Flow Component
Pipe Flow Component
Channel
Flow Component
Final Tc Calculation
BasinLength
(ft)
n' value
Slope
(ft/ft)
P2 (in)
2-
yr,24hr
Veloc
(fps)
Travel
Time
(min)
Total
Sheet
Flow
Time
(min)
Length
Paved
(y/n)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Vel
(fpoc s)
Travel
Time
(min)
Total
Shallow
Flow
Time
(min)
Length
(ft)
Pipe Dia
n' value
(in)
Slope
(ft/ft)
Veloc
(fps)
Travel
Time
(min)
Total
Pipe
Flow
Time
(min)
Length
(ft)
Bottom
Depth of SS
Width
(ft) Flow (ft) (H:V)
n' value
Slope
(ft/ft)
Veloc
(fps)
Travel
Time
(min)
Total
Channel
Flow
Time
(min)
Total
Length
(ft)
Time of
Conc
(min)
SCS
Lagtime
(min)
Avg
Veloc
(ft/sec)
0.00
0.00
0.00
DA -1
70
0.24
0.011
3.95
0.10
12.26
12.26
1150
y
0.015
2.49
7.70
7.70
900
36
0.015
0.006
6.35
2.36
2.36
1380
8.00
2.88
2.88
3500
25.20
15.12
2.31
DA -2
75
0.24
0.012
3.95
0.10
12.52
12.52
580
y
0.015
2.49
3.88
3.88
1600
48
0.015
0.005
7.02
3.80
3.80
2255
20.20
12.12
1.86
DA -3
80
0.02
0.005
3.95
0.52
2.56
2.56
290
y
0.005
1.44
3.36
3.36
280
24
0.015
0.005
4.42
1.05
1.05
900
5.50
2.73
2.73
1550
9.71
5.82
2.66
DA -4
80
0.013
0.01
3.95
0.97
1.38
1.38
800
y
0.01
2.03
6.56
6.56
160
24
0.015
0.007
5.24
0.51
0.51
670
6.00
1.86
1.86
1710
10.31
6.18
2.77
HEC -HMS Basin Data (Existing)
.. Basin Model [Exist_MCCHI
Basin: Exist Wtd CN
Last Modified Date: 21 February 2014
Last Modified Time: 18:37:09
Version: 3.5
Filepath Separator: \
Unit System: English
Missing Flow To Zero: No
Enable Flow Ratio: No
Allow Blending: No
Compute Local Flow At Junctions: No
Enable Sediment Routing: No
Enable Quality Routing: No
End:
Subbasin: DA -1
Description: Headwaters of woodridge channel.
Canvas X: 2438578.2395267426
Canvas Y: 7037248.462996644
Page 1 of 5
HEC -HMS Basin Data (Existing)
Area: 0.3041
Downstream: R1
Canopy: None
Surface: None
LossRate:SCS
Curve Number: 84.6
Transform: SCS
Lag: 15
Unitgraph Type: STANDARD
Baseflow: None
End:
Reach: R1
Canvas X: 2440876.8495172537
Canvas Y: 7039003.296123928
From Canvas X: 2438947.0616568234
From Canvas Y: 7038480.66420396
Downstream: J1
Route: Muskingum Cunge
Channel: Trapezoid
Length: 2200
Energy Slope: 0.006
Width: 6
Side Slope: 3
Mannings n: 0.025
Use Variable Time Step: No
Invert Elevation: 443
Channel Loss: None
End:
Subbasin: DA -2
r-
Description: Upstream of MacArther
Canvas X: 2440548.0849942206
Canvas Y: 7038287.870817781
Area: 0.1247
Downstream: J1
Canopy: None
Surface: None
LossRate:SCS
Curve Number: 76.4
Transform: SCS
Lag: 12
Page 2 of 5
HEC -HMS Basin Data (Existing)
Unitgraph Type: STANDARD
Baseflow: None
End:
Junction: J1
Description: Combine 1 & 2
Canvas X: 2440876.8495172537
Canvas Y: 7039003.296123928
Downstream: R2
End:
Reach: R2
Canvas X: 2441888.795685761
Canvas Y: 7039009.700846514
From Canvas X: 2440876.8495172537
From Canvas Y: 7039003.296123928
Downstream: J2
Route: Muskingum Cunge
Channel: Trapezoid
Length: 1070
Energy Slope: 0.006
Width: 10
Side Slope: 3
Mannings n: 0.035
Use Variable Time Step: No
Invert Elevation: 437
Channel Loss: None
End:
Subbasin: DA -3
Description: Downstream of MacArther
-= Canvas X: 2441127.7123882077
r—
Canvas Y: 7038766.321388265
Area: 0.0323
Downstream: J2
Canopy: None
Surface: None
LossRate:SCS
Curve Number: 83.4
Transform: SCS
Lag: 6
Unitgraph Type: STANDARD
Page 3 of 5
HEC -HMS Basin Data (Existing)
Baseflow: None
End:
Junction: J2
Description: Combine 3
Canvas X: 2441888.795685761
Canvas Y: 7039009.700846514
Downstream: R3
End:
Reach:R3
Canvas X: 2442847.3804024123
Canvas Y: 7038446.0852589905
From Canvas X: 2441888.795685761
From Canvas Y: 7039009.700846514
Downstream: J3
Route: Muskingum Cunge
Channel: Trapezoid
Length: 1060
Energy Slope: 0.006
Width: 20
Side Slope: 3
Mannings n: 0.035
Use Variable Time Step: No
Invert Elevation: 433
Channel Loss: None
End:
Subbasin: DA -4
Description: At Denton Creek
Canvas X: 2442251.7412019614
Canvas Y: 7039064.140988491
Area: 0.0311
Downstream: J3
Canopy: None
Surface: None
LossRate:SCS
Curve Number: 84.2
Transform: SCS
Lag: 6
Unitgraph Type: STANDARD
Baseflow: None
Page 4 of 5
HEC -HMS Basin Data (Existing)
End:
Junction: J3
Description: Combine 4
Canvas X: 2442847.3804024123
Canvas Y: 7038446.0852589905
End:
Basin Schematic Properties:
Last View N: 7039581.271739131
Last View S: 7035929.097826087
Last View W: 2436750.25
Last View E: 2442880.684782609
Maximum View N: 7039999.75
Maximum View S: 7029999.75
Maximum View W: 2430000.25
Maximum View E: 2448000.25
Extent Method: Maps
Buffer: 0
Draw Icons: Yes
Draw Icon Labels: Yes
Draw Map Objects: No
Draw Gridlines: No
Draw Flow Direction: No
Fix Element Locations: No
Fix Hydrologic Order: No
Map: hec.map.mrsid.MrSidMap
Map File Name: 0:\PROJECTS\CPL13314\engdata\H-H\GIS\aerials\j_09d.sid
Minimum Scale: -2147483648
Maximum Scale: 2147483647
Map Shown: Yes
Map: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMap
Map File Name: 0:\PROJECTS\CPL13314\engdata\H-H\GIS\shape\DA.shp
Minimum Scale: -2147483648
Maximum Scale: 2147483647
Map Shown: Yes
End:
Page 5 of 5
Curve Number Calculations
Area
ID
% Area By Soil Type
A B C
D
Weighted
CN
DA -1
0.2
0.8
84.6
DA -2
0.2 0.45
0.35
76.4
DA -3
0.3
0.7
83.4
DA -4
0.7
0.3
84.2
APPENDIX C - HYDRAULIC DATA
0 CULVERTMASTER REPORT
0 CONTECH BRDIGE TOOL REPORT (CON/SPAN)
0 STORMCAD REPORT
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Prop_MacArth u r_1 -6x6
Analysis Component
Storm Event Design Discharge
1,044.00 cfs
Peak Discharge Method: User -Specified
Design Discharge 1,044.00 cfs Check Discharge
1,211.00 cfs
Tailwater properties: Trapezoidal Channel
Tailwater conditions for Design Storm.
Discharge 1,044.00 cfs Bottom Elevation
443.40 ft
Depth 5.82 ft Velocity
6.53 ft/s
Name Description Discharge HW Elev. Velocity
Culvert -1 1-6 x 6 ft Box 517.27 cfs 455.44 ft 14.37 ft/s
Weir Roadway (Constant Eleva&b).01 cfs 455.45 ft N/A
Total ---------------- 1,044.28 cfs 455.44 ft N/A
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cpll3314\engdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:44:03 ANC Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 3
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Prop_MacArthur 1-6x6
Component:Culvert-1
Culvert Summary
Computed Headwater Elew
455.44 ft
Discharge
517.27 cfs
Inlet Control HW Elev.
455.44 ft
Tailwater Elevation
449.22 ft
Outlet Control HW Elev.
454.26 ft
Control Type
Inlet Control
Headwater Depth/Height
1.90
Grades
Upstream Invert
444.06 ft
Downstream Invert
443.41 ft
Length
110.00 ft
Constructed Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
Hydraulic Profile
Profile PressureProfile
Depth, Downstream
6.00 ft
Slope Type
N/A
Normal Depth
N/A ft
Flow Regime
N/A
Critical Depth
6.00 ft
Velocity Downstream
14.37 ft/s
Critical Slope
0.009203 ft/ft
Section
Section Shape
Box
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Section Material
Concrete
Span
6.00 ft
Section Size
6 x 6 ft
Rise
6.00 ft
Number Sections
1
Outlet Control Properties
Outlet Control HW Elev.
454.26 ft
Upstream Velocity Head
3.21 ft
Ke
0.20
Entrance Loss
0.64 ft
Inlet Control Properties
Inlet Control HW Elev.
455.44 ft
Flow Control
Submerged
Inlet Type 90° headwall w 45° bevels
Area Full
36.0 ft2
K
0.49500
HDS 5 Chart
10
M
0.66700
HDS 5 Scale
2
C
0.03140
Equation Form
2
Y
0.82000
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cpll3314\engdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:44:03 AMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 3
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Prop_MacArthur_1-6x6
Component:Weir
Hydraulic Component(s): Roadway (Constant Elevation)
Discharge
527.01 cfs
Allowable HW Elevation
455.45 ft
Roadway Width
90.00 ft
Overtopping Coefficient
3.03 US
Length
100.00 ft
Crest Elevation
454.00 ft
Headwater Elevation
455.44 ft
Discharge Coefficient (Cr)
3.03
Submergence Factor (Kt)
1.00
Sta (ft) Elev. (ft)
0.00 454.00
100.00 454.00
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cpll3314\engdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:44:03 AMP Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 3 of 3
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Exist MacA
2-8x6
Analysis Component
Storm Event Design Discharge
1,044.00 cfs
Peak Discharge Method: User -Specified
Design Discharge 1,044.00 cfs Check Discharge
1,211.00 cfs
Tailwater properties: Trapezoidal Channel
Tailwater conditions for Design Storm.
Discharge 1,044.00 cfs Bottom Elevation
443.40 ft
Depth 5.82 ft Velocity
6.53 ft/s
Name Description Discharge HW Elev. Velocity
Culvert -1 2-8 x 6 ft Box 1,044.07 cfs 452.68 ft 14.20 ft/s
Weir Roadway (Constant ElevatiorQ.00 cfs 452.68 ft N/A
Total ---------------- 1,044.07 cfs 452.68 It N/A
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cp113314\engdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:54:12 ANP Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 3
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Exist MacA 2-8x6
Component:Culvert-1
Culvert Summary
Computed Headwater Elew
Inlet Control HW Elev.
Outlet Control HW Elev.
Headwater Depth/Height
Grades
452.68 ft
452.68 ft
452.21 ft
1.44
Discharge
Tailwater Elevation
Control Type
1,044.07 cfs
449.22 ft
Inlet Control
Upstream Invert
444.06 ft
Downstream Invert
443.41 ft
Length
110.00 ft
Constructed Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
Hydraulic Profile
Profile CompositeS1S2
Depth, Downstream
4.59 ft
Slope Type
Steep
Normal Depth
4.48 ft
Flow Regime
N/A
Critical Depth
5.10 ft
Velocity Downstream
14.20 ft/s
Critical Slope
0.004279 Wit
Section
Section Shape
Box
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Section Material
Concrete
Span
8.00 ft
Section Size
8 x 6 ft
Rise
6.00 ft
Number Sections
2
Outlet Control Properties
Outlet Control HW Elev.
452.21 ft
Upstream Velocity Head
2.55 ft
Ke
0.20
Entrance Loss
0.51 ft
Inlet Control Properties
Inlet Control HW Elev.
452.68 ft
Flow Control
Submerged
Inlet Type 90° headwall w 45° bevels
Area Full
96.0 ft2
K
0.49500
HDS 5 Chart
10
M
0.66700
HDS 5 Scale
2
C
0.03140
Equation Form
2
Y
0.82000
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cp113314Xengdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:54:12 AMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 3
Culvert Designer/Analyzer Report
Exist MacA 2-8x6
Component:Weir
Hydraulic Component(s): Roadway (Constant Elevation)
Discharge
0.00 cfs
Allowable HW Elevation
452.68 It
Roadway Width
90.00 ft
Overtopping Coefficient
2.90 US
Length
100.00 ft
Crest Elevation
454.00 ft
Headwater Elevation
N/A ft
Discharge Coefficient (Cr)
2.90
Submergence Factor (Kt)
1.00
Sta (ft) EIev. (ft)
0.00 454.00
100.00 454.00
Title: Woodridge Channel - Concept Study Project Engineer: Kyle Dykes
o:\projects\cpll3314\engdata\h-h\woodridge_cv.cvm Teague Nall & Perkins Inc CulvertMaster v3.3 [03.03.00.04]
04/01/14 10:54:12 AMD Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 3 of 3
CONTECH Bridge Solutions Inc. Version: 4.0.1
Date: 4/1/2014 Time: 11:53:23 AM
Culvert Report
Project Name: O:\PROJECTS\CPL13314\engdata\H-H\Hydraulics\Contech_Bridge_Tool_Calcs.CSS
Total Discharge: 1391.00 Cfs
Tailwater Elevation: 452.45 ft
Physical Data for C -Span 24
Culvert Type: CON/SPAN(TM)
Culvert Span: 24.00 ft
Culvert Rise: 6.00 ft
CulvertArea: 118.26 ft1\2
Culvert Upstream Elevation: 448.60 ft
Culvert Downstream Elevation: 444.41 ft
Culvert Length: 750.00 ft
Culvert Slope: 0.006
Number of Barrels: 1
Entrance Condition: Extended WW
Inlet Control Regression Coefficients:
K = 0.4460
M = 0.6670
c = 0.0270
Y = 0.6760
Outlet Control Parameters:
Manning Roughness Coefficient: 0.013
Entrance Loss Coefficient: 0.50
" Hydraulic Results
Culvert Discharge: 1391.00 Cfs
Governing Headwater Elevation: 458.46 ft
Inlet Control Headwater Elevation: 7.77 ft
Outlet Control Headwater Elevation: 9.86 ft
Culvert Normal Depth: 3.64 ft
Culvert Critical Depth: 4.46 It
'Culvert Entrance Loss: 1.07 ft
Culvert Friction Loss: 2.79 ft
Culvert Exit Loss: 2.15 ft
Culvert Exit Velocity: 11.76 ft/sec
Pier Debris Width: 0.00 ft
Inlet Control Condition: Submerged Inlet
Outlet Control Condition: Full Culvert Flow
q
E
E
\
\
$
a o o» o g
¥29G§
U 0 (� /
a) /
k \
CL
D m
§
t/
m�oz�
\Ĥ/
Y,
t/
§ �
%0
ƒg/
Ĥ
\\
ƒ
0
»«
/
\\ J
Ln W
Ln
U)
Ln
§ \
/
�\2
§
(
/
2 CL CL
§J3±JZa
\ /
k
\\
c
ul/
f
w
g
=m0eo'm—
o
E 3
_
7
>—=ct22®�
En
\CL
/)
\
mo
Q) s o o=
m o;
o
e
2))22))2]
m
w/
¥
§
k±
&
tt
\2)
.
�u
C
}f>/
/ \ /
/ —
eG/=�2=E3\/@
of
/) > � =
C: ::
= o 2
�-jz 2:m)/k/]\\/
a o o» o g
¥29G§
U 0 (� /
a) /
k \
CL
D m
§
t/
m�oz�
\Ĥ/
Y,
t/
§ �
%0
ƒg/
Ĥ
\\
ƒ
0
»«
/
\\ J
Ln W
Ln
Ln
Ln
§ \
f \
§
Ȥcn
2 CL CL
§J3±JZa
\ /
k
\
k
® f
e
f
9
7
\
E
A
T
§ \
f \
§
Ȥcn
2 CL CL
§J3±JZa
7
\
E
A
O
CL
4)
19
wV
W
w�
W
C
O
u
r^: �7N
N `r O
Q
o
�n
a) o p '-I p
:3 y O O
U O
�`- lLO
c
O o U
o05 a
a �=
m
L�m
woo n
N N fr�
O--
R o
> Q C
Q E
V Q
Y
1--1 d C E ?
E a
N �
u v m E
>
M1,
N J C
m
E
T O
CLra
U
�•V fY/1 O1 aJ
CO
m
a1 C v! i
0 0 o m
G N U o m a
in
N
N
� Q
LL LL LL
M1•
N
a1
i M1.
n• j C m N
Y
Q" � = 0
Q Yo 0 -
U
U N — :3 N
w
c c U)
L
LL
mrn 3 y
'a)
-ov
a D Q E
ru
D d a J
v o
N
00
94
x
9
VL I
�
0
CL
2
�
2
2
d
D
�
�
c
0
u
q
E
E
\
\
A
m !
\ (A
& \t \$2
C �u 0f>u
° ��. ®]m
\f\§g\Eb�'00
/ -0 V b »
�]k\22]02£±/§f\±
k
o \ [
/\aĤ
§])\f
o o
t$
g N 0 2 w
$�§/
2 \
\0- \
taƒ&f
S 2 c 2 =
Ln(n3LOz
±
E
E
\
E2
�
t/
y27
z a z
/ 00
E 3 G 3
« *
2
k
)\
ƒk
Ȥ
Ȥ/
C3 En
\ \ /
7 j
3�m
= u
02
S
«k\7o {\
�
�
\
g= >
o n
NA
m\ m
< (= m ce m
c Ln_
§
§
m m m m m m
m m m
§
w o
m m c m m m
m m m
m
m !
\ (A
& \t \$2
C �u 0f>u
° ��. ®]m
\f\§g\Eb�'00
/ -0 V b »
�]k\22]02£±/§f\±
k
o \ [
/\aĤ
§])\f
o o
t$
g N 0 2 w
$�§/
2 \
\0- \
taƒ&f
S 2 c 2 =
Ln(n3LOz
±
E
E
\
E2
�
t/
y27
z a z
/ 00
E 3 G 3
« *
7
\
3
�/
ƒ»
)\
ƒk
Ȥ
Ȥ/
C3 En
0
2
3�m
7
\
3
N N
LL
i
N N
d
C a
t+ m
0 0 +�
N J C
C -
u
0 N U
o
O -4 O
.4
C E
LL Z3
N � 7
X
L xo
� N
C 7 (mn (mn (mn
LLLLLL
n•
� m
i n•
n• j C m N
3 -Ci 31 N M
10 0. � a CO
U ix u
C C C a)
m Cl LL. y
m 'n p E
0 0 a Q J
0 It O
Q
U
E
0
U)
Q
U
c �
�o
U�
0(.)
7r) 0
3 �
O 30
N N
a�
N N I�-
_ N
C j t
.0
N �
E c
+O-• N
TC'
U o
�U
N O
CO
n
N
m
E
E
U)
0
ca
c
U
U)
h
C
O O C
�—' C O
O�1 'cc`� al EL
p U 7 V 30 O
FO (n Z` �' 'p� �- Y O
m o
E o c p co
'O C C cm
a) �- U
'Y L N O m T tOif m
Q CL U
En
m m m m m m m m m m m
m m m m m m m m m m m
c C o
0 LL
T aaii A o
0
o U c 3 fufQ
a.m.+ _= V
m o m— 0 c E
a) V O O) aha � � a1 O
p o v c ami o m T ami vO p a
�zQacnpc7cn0
7i
+' N a) In X C_
'C d U co
O O
U mc C)
U
a) aJ
C O
p o
W m
D
C
O
CL o N
v,
!� m
O O C 0
O
O O i
Z Z
oa c E
(n VI J (n z
j n OR
a
C
O
0.
00 00
W W
N N
.--i ,4
Lo \
\
0
0
v a
,
p o.
m
U
m
U c
.4 co
00
co
00
M N
Ln
N
Ln
3 v
0
0
v a
,
p o.
m
U
m
U c
U (nn.0
W
3 m m 3
V t� U -m
m v,
u� ..
� Tt N
w O
N O
'C: O
N _: N
0 r N
U o0 0_
w�
J
w
U
co
D
Q
U
E
0
U)
W
�X
Nr
L
0
CL
19
wV
W
w�
W
V
c
O
0
C
CL
c 'a
V.� O N
4
� J C
C 12
2)'
U -
0 N U
O
0 0
7 NN
2 2 IL
n•
N
fj
Y m N
a a
U Ln � � a
C C LL V7
'� o E
o a
to
N
as
00
N
O �
O r
9a
a
u
r.
ui
v a
yU
jR x
0m0
(L
c
0
p
CL
O
n n=
F
v
44
(4) u0llenal3
0
a
to
a
LO
r
a
a
M1
O
Lo
to
O
O
to
O
O
p
to
�1
�
U
O
M
R
a
v
a
M
O
a
M
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
P
O
LO
O
O
r
i
M1
d
to
NI
j
to
O
0 00
Ln
6
Q
U_
R
n
m
N
LL
a
V
O
0
V
O
�
'C
� 'L"'
�
.mss_,
•L
�n
4
Ck
t� N
U'
N
3
N
a
K
APPENDIX D — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (excerpt only)
integrated environmental solutions
25 March 2014
Mr. Kyle Dykes
Teague, Nall and Perkins Inc.
1100 Macon Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Re: Waters of the United States Delineation, Section 404 Permit Assessment, and Mitigation Assessment
Sandy Lake Road; City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas
Dear Mr. Dykes,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC. (IES) performed a survey to identify all water features that meet a
definition of a water of the United States on approximately 905 feet of channel that parallels Sandy Lake Road, at
the intersection of South MacArthur Boulevard in Coppell, Dallas County, Texas (Attachment A, Figure 1). This
delineation was conducted to ensure compliance with Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) for the proposed development planning.
INTRODUCTION
Agencies that regulate impacts to the nation's water resources within Texas include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Jurisdictional waters of the United States are
protected under guidelines outlined in Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA, in Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands), and by the review process of the TCEQ. The USACE has the primary regulatory authority for enforcing
Section 404 requirements for waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The definition of waters of the United States, in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3, includes waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, wetlands, sloughs, wet meadows, or
natural ponds and all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States. Also included are
wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands). The term adjacent is defined as
bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Jurisdictional wetlands are a category of waters of the United States and
have been defined by the USACE as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Waters of the United States are defined in 33 CFR 328.3 (a) as:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or maybe susceptible to use in interstate or
foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC
McKinney, Texas 75070
2150 South Central Expressway, Suite 110
www.intenvsol.com
Telephone: 972.562.7672
Facsimile: 972.562.7673
Mr. Kyle Dykes Page 2
Sandy Lake Road Delineation
25 March 2014
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats,
sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,
degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section;
6. The territorial seas;
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-
6 above.
8. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of
CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this
definition) are not waters of the United States.
On 05 June 2007, the USACE and the USEPA issued joint guidance on delineation of waters on the United States
based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Rapanos and Carabell. Under this guidance, potential waters of the
United States have been classified as traditional navigable waters (TNW), relatively permanent waters (RPW) (i.e.,
having flow most of the year or at least seasonally), or non-RPWs. This guidance states that TNWs and RPWs and
contiguous or adjacent wetlands to these water features are waters of the United States. Wetlands that are
bordering, contiguous, or neighboring another water of the United States is considered adjacent. Additionally,
wetlands that are within the 100 -year floodplain of another water of the United States are also considered
adjacent. Non-RPWs, wetlands contiguous or adjacent to non-RPWs, and isolated wetlands must undergo a
"significant nexus" test on a case-by-case basis to determine the jurisdictional nature of these water features.
Under the "significant nexus" test a water feature must have substantial connection to a TNW by direct flow, or by
indirect biological, hydrologic, or chemical connection. Under the "significant nexus" test the USACE District
Engineer must submit the jurisdictional determination (JD) to the regional USEPA office, which makes the decision
whether to move the JD to Headquarters USACE to make the final determination.
The new guidance does not void the January 2001 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. USACE which disallowed regulation of isolated wetlands under the CWA
through the "Migratory Bird Rule." Previously, the USACE assumed jurisdiction over isolated waters of the United
States based on its 1986 preamble stating that migratory birds used these habitats. The "Migratory Bird Rule"
provided the nexus to interstate commerce and thus protection under the CWA. However, the new guidance does
require that the "significant nexus" test be performed in addition to an analysis of other potential interstate
commerce uses for isolated waters.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map (Attachment A, Figure 2), Soil
Survey of Dallas County, Texas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) (Attachment A, Figure 4), and aerial photographs of the project site were studied to identify possible
waters of the United States and areas prone to wetland development. Mr. Rudi Reinecke and Mr. Ross Rogers of
IES conducted the field surveys for potential waters of the United States in accordance with the USACE procedures
on 18 February 2014.
Wetland delineations were performed on location using the methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineer Wetland Delineation Manual:
Great Plains Region (Version 2.0, March 2010). The presence of a wetland is determined by the positive indication
of three criteria (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils). Potential jurisdictional boundaries for
Mr. Kyle Dykes Page 3
Sandy Lake Road Delineation
25 March 2014
other water resources (i.e., non -wetland) were delineated in the field at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
The 33 CFR 328.3(e) defines OHWM as the line on the shore/bank established by flowing and/or standing water,
marked by characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, erosion shelving, changes in the
character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means
that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Water feature boundaries were recorded using a Trimble GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) unit capable of
sub -meter accuracy. Photographs were taken at representative points across the survey corridor, which are
provided in Attachment B.
RESULTS
Literature Review
No water features are illustrated on the USGS topographic map (1997), however, there are "V" -shaped contours
indicating confined flow in the project vicinity. The Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas illustrates a tributary within
the project site. The FEMA FIRM illustrates the project site within Zone X (areas of 1% annual chance flood with
average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile) and Zone X (areas determine to
be outside the 500 -year floodplain) (Map Number 48113C0155J effective 23 August 2001). The FEMA FIRM does
not illustrate any water features within the project site.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) digital soil survey data for Dallas County (Attachment A, Figure
3) mapped two soil series within the project site — Silawa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded and Trinity
clay, occasionally flooded. Trinity clay, when found within depressions, is listed on the Hydric Soils of Texas list
prepared by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (revision April 2012).
Site Survey
The project site was comprised of two habitat communities; urban riparian and maintained channel. The urban
riparian community was dominated by red mulberry (Morus rubra), black willow (Salix nigra) and cattails (Typha
latifolia) along the edge of the tributary. The slopes of the channel were comprised of cool season annuals, giant
ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). This vegetation extended from the limits of
the ordinary high water mark up the slope for approximately fifteen feet on either side of the channel before
transitioning to maintained grasses. The maintained channel flowed through two separate concrete drop
structures. Cattails and black willow were located along the sediment deposits within the concrete drop structures
in the maintained channel.
The immediate topography of the area was flat, with the overall topography sloping from west to east as the
landscape transitioned into the floodplain of the Elm Fork Trinity River. The tributary entered the project site
through a single concrete channel, flowing from west to east. The tributary paralleled Sand Lake Drive for
approximately 3,000 feet before crossing Sandy Lake Road and emptying into Denton Creek, a tributary of the Elm
Fork Trinity River. The delineated tributary within the project site is detailed below (Attachment A, Figure 5 and
Table 1).
Table 1
Waters Delineated in Project Study Area
Water Identification
Water of the
United States
HydraulicLength
Characteristics
Classification
Area
(Linear Feet) (Acre)
Tributary 1
Yes
Intermittent
RPW
905 0.24
JURISDICTIONAL TOTAL
905 0.24
Tributary 1 was a channelized drainage that displayed intermittent flow characteristics based on the degree of
incisement and amount of flow observed during the field inspection. It is IES' opinion that the flow in this tributary
is seasonal and would be classified as a RPW. Upstream from the project site, the tributary was a concrete channel
that provided drainage for storm water culverts from several surrounding residential neighborhoods. Within the
project site the tributary's width averaged eight feet. Immediately downstream of the project site Tributary 1
converged with Denton Creek, a tributary of the Elm Fork Trinity River. The Elm Fork Trinity River conveys water to
the West Fork Trinity River, a TNW. Given Tributary 1's indirect connection to a TNW it is IES' professional opinion
Mr. Kyle Dykes Page 4
Sandy Lake Road Delineation
25 March 2014
that this tributary and all of its channels would meet a definition of a water of the United States and therefore be
regulated under Section 404 of the CWA.
Compensatory Mitigation Cost Opinion
The USACE Fort Worth District has a Regional General Condition that, for projects with impacts exceeding 0.1 acre
or 300 linear feet of tributary impacts, compensatory mitigation will be required to ensure that the activity results
in minimal adverse effects to the aquatic environment. The USACE recently published the Fort Worth District
Guidance for performing compensatory mitigation on streams in the Stream Mitigation Method. In following this
guidance, the Fort Worth District requires that at least 50 percent of the impacted stream be mitigated utilizing a
mitigation bank that has conducted either in -stream or riparian buffer mitigation. The remaining 50 percent of the
impacted stream would be allowed to utilize the "legacy -style" mitigation banks. All new in -stream or riparian
buffer mitigation banks are credited and debited utilizing the Texas Rapid Assessment Method (TXRAM) versus the
"legacy -style" mitigation banks are based on standardized multipliers. There are multiple mitigation banks
available; however, the following multipliers and cost estimates per credit are being provided for Trinity River
Mitigation Bank (TRMB), a "legacy -style" mitigation bank, and Mill Branch Mitigation Bank (MBMB), a riparian -
buffer mitigation bank. These two banks are used here due to the project being located in their primary service
areas and advertised costs per credit.
TXRAM is a condition based assessment tool for evaluating streams and wetlands prepared by the USACE Fort
Worth Regulatory Branch for use in Texas in both Fort Worth and Tulsa Districts. The TXRAM modules were
developed to provide consistent methods for wetland and stream assessment and will be used for assessing the
condition of the water features. This standardized condition assessment of the water features was developed to
provide a tool that compares water features. TXRAM has many uses, but for the purpose of this project, it
documents the overall condition of the different Stream Reaches (Attachment A, Figure 6) which will then be used
to document the necessary compensatory mitigation for the proposed project impacts utilizing the Stream
Mitigation Method as published by the USACE in their CESWF-I3-MIT-1 Public Notice on 02 October 2013.
The TXRAM Streams Module was developed to gauge the integrity of a stream, assuming that stream condition is a
product of complex interactions among biological, chemical, and physical processes. TXRAM utilizes metrics based
on these interactions, as well as, visible physical and biological characteristics to provide an overall score of the
stream condition. The project site was divided into two Stream Assessment Reaches (SAR) based on overall
characteristics of the site. SAR A contained a trapezoidal channel that had some shrub scrub vegetation on slopes
of the riparian corridor and SAR B was a concrete lined section of the tributary. Specifically SAR A was identified as
a deeply incised channel with a natural substrate bed and bank. Overhanging vegetation with woody and leafy
debris was identified as part of the in -stream habitat, and an early successional riparian buffer was identified along
both banks of SAR A. Additionally SAR A displayed approximately 25 percent active bank erosion along both banks
of the tributary. SAR B was identified as a concrete channel with an artificial bed and bank. Neither in -stream
habitat nor riparian buffer were identified along SAR B. The artificially stabilized banks exhibited no erosion along
SAR B. The completed TXRAM Data Forms are provided in Attachment C, which documents all of the scoring
matrices.
Table 2 provides the cost opinion of the proposed compensatory mitigation for the complete enclosure of the
tributary. As stated previously, there are other mitigation options; however, there would be service area
multipliers and these mitigation banks do not publish their rates. As the project moves forward, an actual cost
estimate should be acquired to verify the prices and potentially have the mitigation banks compete for the project.
Mr. Kyle Dykes Page 5
Sandy Lake Road Delineation
25 March 2014
Table 2.
Proposed Compensatory Mitigation Cost Opinion Utilizing the Stream Mitigation Method
'Cost opinion uses Trinity River Mitigation Bank for the Legacy -Style mitigation bank
2Cost opinion uses Mill Branch Mitigation Bank as the Riparian Buffer -Style mitigation bank
3Each mitigation bank type is allocated 50 percent of the impacts to reduce the overall mitigation cost
4TRMB has a 0.008 multiplier to each linear foot of impacted intermittent stream to calculate credits
5MBMB multiplies the linear feet of impacted stream to the TXRAM score (converted from percent to decimal) to calculate credits
6TRMB cost per credits is $17,500.00 at the time this report is dated
7MBMB cost per credits is $1,200.00 at the time this report is dated
8USACE Fort Worth District does not require compensatory mitigation for previously concrete -lined streams
CONCLUSIONS
Delineation Summary
To summarize the delineation, one potentially jurisdictional water was identified and delineated within the Project
Site — Tributary 1. Tributary 1 was approximately 905 linear feet long within the project area and measured 0.24
acre below the OHWM. Based on the June 2007 guidance, it is IES' professional opinion that this feature does
meet the definition of a water of the United States as this is a tributary of a TNW and is considered a RPW. This
delineation is based on professional experience in the approved methodology, and from experience with the
USACE Fort Worth District regulatory biologists. However, this delineation does not constitute a jurisdictional
determination of waters of the United States. Only the USACE can make the final jurisdictional determination,
which can be based on the professional opinions presented in this report.
The project planning is to enclose the tributary within the project site to facilitate reduced maintenance and a
pocket park. Due to the length of the impacts, the project would require compensatory mitigation and following
the new USACE Fort Worth District Stream Mitigation Method of utilizing multiple mitigation bank types, the cost
opinion at the time this letter is dated, is approximately $165,440.00. There are multiple factors that affect the
cost estimates and therefore should be visited again during the Section 404 permitting process.
IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you and Teague, Nall and Perkins, Inc. on this project, and hope we
may be of assistance to you in the future. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Rudi Reinecke at 972/562-7672 or (RRogers@intenvsol.com or
Rreinecke@intenvsol.com).
Sincerely,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC.
Ross Rogers
Environmental Specialist
Attachments
File ref., 04.080.032
LEGACY -STYLE BANK'
RIPARIAN BUFFER STYLE BANK
SAR
Total
Length
Length
Multiplier
Credits°
Estimated
Cost6
Length
TxRAM
Score
Creditss
Estimated
Cost'
A
302.4
151.2
0.008
1.2
$21,000.00
151.2
43.4
65.6
$78,720.00
B8
225.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.9
NA
NA
A
198.6
99.3
0.008
0.8
$14,000.00
99.3
43.4
43.1
$51,720.00
B8
178.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.9
NA
NA
Subtotal
$35,000.00
$130,440.00
Grand Total
$165,440.00
'Cost opinion uses Trinity River Mitigation Bank for the Legacy -Style mitigation bank
2Cost opinion uses Mill Branch Mitigation Bank as the Riparian Buffer -Style mitigation bank
3Each mitigation bank type is allocated 50 percent of the impacts to reduce the overall mitigation cost
4TRMB has a 0.008 multiplier to each linear foot of impacted intermittent stream to calculate credits
5MBMB multiplies the linear feet of impacted stream to the TXRAM score (converted from percent to decimal) to calculate credits
6TRMB cost per credits is $17,500.00 at the time this report is dated
7MBMB cost per credits is $1,200.00 at the time this report is dated
8USACE Fort Worth District does not require compensatory mitigation for previously concrete -lined streams
CONCLUSIONS
Delineation Summary
To summarize the delineation, one potentially jurisdictional water was identified and delineated within the Project
Site — Tributary 1. Tributary 1 was approximately 905 linear feet long within the project area and measured 0.24
acre below the OHWM. Based on the June 2007 guidance, it is IES' professional opinion that this feature does
meet the definition of a water of the United States as this is a tributary of a TNW and is considered a RPW. This
delineation is based on professional experience in the approved methodology, and from experience with the
USACE Fort Worth District regulatory biologists. However, this delineation does not constitute a jurisdictional
determination of waters of the United States. Only the USACE can make the final jurisdictional determination,
which can be based on the professional opinions presented in this report.
The project planning is to enclose the tributary within the project site to facilitate reduced maintenance and a
pocket park. Due to the length of the impacts, the project would require compensatory mitigation and following
the new USACE Fort Worth District Stream Mitigation Method of utilizing multiple mitigation bank types, the cost
opinion at the time this letter is dated, is approximately $165,440.00. There are multiple factors that affect the
cost estimates and therefore should be visited again during the Section 404 permitting process.
IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you and Teague, Nall and Perkins, Inc. on this project, and hope we
may be of assistance to you in the future. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Rudi Reinecke at 972/562-7672 or (RRogers@intenvsol.com or
Rreinecke@intenvsol.com).
Sincerely,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC.
Ross Rogers
Environmental Specialist
Attachments
File ref., 04.080.032
F =
4 r�
#r
I_
SAR A
(302.4 Feet)
As
40
f
I*
OL
IL
r
� 1
SAR B SAR A SAR B
(225:8 Feet) (198.6 Feet) (178.5 Feet)
a4P f7
w'
k
40 1
I - �t
.dam i
A&
t �y
ft
1.1
Figure 6
Texas Rapid Assessment Method Project Site
Stream Assessment Reaches Q Stream Assessment Reaches (SAR)
Tributary N
County: Dallas WE
State: Texas
Date map created: 03/20/2014 S
Source: 2012 USDA FSA 1 inch = 200 feet
Aerial Photography Feet
0 200 400 600
APPENDIX E - OPNIION'S OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION
COST (OPCC)
tnp
League nail & perkins Conceptual Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Client: City ofCoppell Date: 1 -Apr -14
Project: Woodridge Channel Prepared By: KJD
trip no.: CPL13314 Checked By: SCW
Option 1: Box Culvert Enclosure Sheet: 1 of 2
No.
Spec
Item Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Item Cost
1
Mobilization (5% of Items 3-11)
1
LS
$ 57,000
$ 57,000
2
Site Preparation
8
STA
$3,000.00
$ 24,000
3
Unclassified Channel Excavation (Export)
1,500
CY
$10.00
$ 15,000
4
Embankment (Import)
3,000
CY
$15.00
$ 45,000
5
2-9x6 Concrete Box Culvert BC
750
LF
$1,150.00
$ 862,500
6
Concrete Slab Beam Enclosure 1 Transition
350
SF
$80.00
$ 28,000
7
Concrete Heawall/Win wall
1
EA
$25,000.00
$ 25,000
8
5" Concrete Ri R Channel Bottom & Transitions
90
SY
$30.00
$ 2,700
9
6'x6' RCB by Tunnel & Jacking (@ MacArthur)
110
LF
$800.00
$ 88,000
10
Site Stabilization
7,000
SY
$4.50
$ 31,500
11
Utility Adjustments (Budget)
1
LS
$12,000.00
$ 12,000
12
SWPPP
1
LS
$5,000.00
$ 5,000
13
14
Construction Subtotal
$ 1,195,700
15
Contingencies (25%)
$ 298,925
16
Option 1 Construction Total
$ 1,495,000
17
18
Environmental Mitigation
1
LS
$165,000.00
$165,000.00
19
Option 1 Project Total
$ 1,660,000
20
Q No Design Completed
❑ Preliminary Design
❑ Final Design
tnp
Teague nall & perkins Conceptual Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Client: City ofCoppell Date: 1 -Apr -14
Project: Woodridge Channel Prepared By: KJD
tnp no.: CPL13314 Checked By: SCW
Option 2: Con/Span Enclosure Sheet: 2 of 2
No.
Spec
Item Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Item Cost
1
Mobilization 5% of Items 3-14
1
LS
$ 77,000
$ 77,000
2
Site Preparation
8
STA
$3,000.00
$ 24,000
3
Unclassified Channel Excavation (Export)
1,500
CY
$10.00
$ 15,000
4
Embankment (Import)
3,000
LS
$15.00
$ 45,000
5
25'x6' Con/Span Pre -Cast Bridge Stucture (O -Series)
750
LF
$1,100.00
$ 825,000
6
Concrete Slab Beam Enclosure (1 Transition)
350
SF
$80.00
$ 28,000
7
30" Drilled Concrete Piers (Con/Span Support, 16'c -c, 15' deep)
1,410
LF
$80.00
$ 112,800
8
Structural Concrete (Grade Beam Cap, 3'x2.5', each side)
420
CY
$610.00
$ 256,200
9
Concrete HeawalltWingwall
1
EA
$25,000.00
$ 25,000
10
5" Concrete Ri R Channel Bottom & Transitions
2,170
SY
$30.00
$ 65,100
11
6'x6' RCB by Bore & Jacking (@ MacArthur)
110
LF
$800.00
$ 88,000
12
Site Stabilization
7,000
SY
$4.50
$ 31,500
13
Utility Adjustments (Budget)
1
LS
$12,000.00
$ 12,000
14
SWPPP
1
LS
$5,000.00
$ 5,000
15
16
Construction Subtotal
$ 1,609,600
17
Contingencies 25%
$ 402,400
18
Option 2 Construction Total
$ 2,012,000
19
20
Environmental Mitigation
1
LS
$165,000.00
$165,000.00
21
Option 2 Project Total
$ 2,177,000
22
F� No Design Completed
_o Preliminary Design
❑ Final Design