DR1501- ST151223
HUNTERWOOD PARK
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
CONCEPTUAL STUDY
TRIBUTARY G-1
CITY OF COPPELL, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
TX REG. ENGINEERING FIRM F-14439
TX REG. SURVEYING FIRM LS-10193805
PK No. 2052-15.110
8350 N Central Expy. Ste 1000
Dallas, Texas 75206-1612
PREPARED BY:
DECEMBER 2015
Hunterwood Park Improvements
Coppell, Texas December 2015
1
MEMORANDUM of CONCEPTS
The City of Coppell, Texas (City) has retained the services of Pacheco Koch Consulting
Engineers (PK), to provide conceptual design alternatives for the stream bank erosion
along Tributary G-1 of Grapevine Creek within Hunterwood Park. Tributary G-1 is incising
and beginning to severely erode portions of the park. The below image shows an
example of the stream bank erosion. Additional site photos are provided as
attachments.
Figure 1: Severe Stream Bank Erosion
The erosion is also beginning to impact public infrastructure located in the park. There is
a storm drainage outfall and two (2) wooden pedestrian bridges that would be
impacted by continued erosion, as well as adjacent private properties. The most severe
stream bank erosion is located near the eastern end of the park, downstream of the
channel head cut. The erosion locations and infrastructure are shown in the figure
below.
Hunterwood Park Improvements
Coppell, Texas December 2015
2
Figure 2: Severe Bank Erosion Locations
Also, the substantial May rains caused further stream incising and stream bank erosion.
The head cut in the stream channel eroded approximately 100 feet further upstream
causing the banks to become too steep and sloughing off. The photo below shows the
recent erosion.
Figure 3: Recent Stream Bank Erosion
Hunterwood Park Improvements
Coppell, Texas December 2015
3
Conceptual design alternatives have been developed to repair these severely eroded
banks. Two (2) methods for repairing the streambank erosion; gabion basket walls or
soils nails with concrete wall facade. The proposed stream improvements also include
grade control structures at key location along the length of the channel to help prevent
further channel incising and bank erosion. An existing concrete bag wall is located
along the channel at the eastern edge of the park. It is recommended that this wall be
removed and replaced as well. Below is a summary of the Opinion of Probable
Construction Costs for the conceptual design alternatives.
Project Name Description OPCC
Option 1a:
Gabion Walls
Includes 3 – 12 ft tall gabion walls approximately with a
total length of 300 feet and Twelve (12) grade control
structures throughout the park.
$619,000
Option 1b:
Gabion Walls
(Extended)
Same as Option 1a with the additional costs associated
with the replacement of the concrete bag wall.
Approximately 475 total linear feet of wall.
$860,000
Option 2a:
Soil Nail Walls
Includes 3 – 12 ft tall concrete walls supported with soil
nails spaced 5 ft O.C. both vertically and horizontally for
approximately 300 linear feet and Twelve (12) grade
control structures throughout the park.
$849,000
Option 2b:
Soil Nail Walls
(Extended)
Same as Option 2a with the additional costs associated
with the replacement of the concrete bag wall.
Approximately 475 total linear feet of wall.
$1,212,000
Table 1: Summary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Along with the conceptual design phase, several special services were also performed
during this phase of the project. The special services included: Geotechnical
Investigation, Survey and Conditions Assessment, Drainage Analysis and Environmental
Delineation and Permitting Review.
Geotechnical Assessment
A preliminary geotechnical assessment was performed by Terracon Consultants, Inc. to
determine the existing site conditions, to provide recommendations for geotechnical
design and to assist in the development of the conceptual designs based on past
experiences with similar soil conditions. The assessment recommends five (5) soil samples
to finalize the wall design parameters. One sample at the northeast corner of the park,
two (2) samples at the top of bank and two (2) samples in the channel bottom. The
assessment also recommends the use of Gabions or Soil Nail Walls to stabilize the stream
banks. A copy of the preliminary geotechnical assessment is provided as an
attachment.
Hunterwood Park Improvements
Coppell, Texas December 2015
4
Survey and Conditions Assessment
A survey and conditions assessment was performed along the Tributary G-1 between
South Coppell Road and the confluence with Grapevine Creek. The survey
documented the flowline of the stream from the downstream grade control structure
(private driveway culvert) to South Coppell Road. The location and elevation of the
head cut along the channel and height of the severely eroded banks were also
obtained. It should be noted, the head cut in the channel has migrated approximately
100 feet upstream since the survey due to large storm events. The survey and photo
documentation of the creek is provided as attachments.
Drainage Analysis
A drainage analysis was performed to determine the channel velocities in the vicinity of
the proposed improvements. The fully-developed peak discharges for the 2-year and
100-year storm events were taken from the city’s master plan hydrologic model. The
fully-developed flows and LiDAR point cloud data were utilized to develop the
hydraulic model. The hydraulic model shows a maximum channel velocity in the vicinity
of the proposed improvements of 10.2 ft/s. The figure below shows the approximate
limits of the fully-developed floodplains.
Figure 4: Fully-developed Floodplains
Hunterwood Park Improvements
Coppell, Texas December 2015
5
Environmental Permitting
A Jurisdictional Assessment was performed for Tributary G-1 by Integrated
Environmental Solutions (IES) to determine the limits of the potential waters of the US.
The assessment determined there were approximately 0.71 acres (31,200 square feet) of
potential waters of the US. The proposed stream bank stabilization is approximately 475
linear feet including the replacement of the concrete bag wall. These improvements
would be covered under Nationwide Permit 13 with no preconstruction notification
(PCN) to the USACE. The USACE does not require a PCN unless the bank stabilization
exceeds 500 linear feet along the channel or the discharge/fill is greater than an
average of one cubic yard per running foot.
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Waters of the US Delineation
A Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment was also performed for the
project area. The assessment found that there would be no effect to federally listed
threatened and endangered species on the basis that no federally listed species
habitat were observed during the field survey.
Attachments
• Site Photos
• Erosion Location Exhibit
• Jurisdictional Waters Exhibit
• Floodplain Work M ap
• Proposed Improvements
Exhibit
• Engineer’s Opinion of
Probable Construction Costs
• Jurisdic tional Waters
Assessment
• Endangered Species
Assessment
• Geotechnical Assessment
Si
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
'!('!(
'
!
(
'
!(
'!(
'
!
(
'!(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!('!(
'
!(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!(
'!(
'
!(
'
!
(
'!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!('
!(
'
!
(
'
!
(
'!(
TRIBUTARY G-1
HEARTHSTONE LANE 42 41
3938
40
36
37
23
24 34
33
32
35
5
3
4
6 1514
12 13
10
11
2221
31
1
2
9
87
16
1817
27
25 29
2826
30
2019
56 57
53
52
55
51
59 60
54
58
PHOTO LOCATION MAP
HUNTERWOOD PARKCOPPELL, TEXAS
TX
R
E
G
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
F
-
1
4
4
3
9
T
X
R
E
G
.
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
L
S
-
1
0
1
9
3
8
-
0
5
°0 5025Feet
1 inch = 50 feet
December 22, 2015
NOTE DATUM
NAD 1983 TEXAS STATE PLANENORTH CENTRAL ZONE FIPS 4202
KEY TO FEATURES
'!(INITIAL SITE VISIT PHOTOS
'!(SECOND SITE VISIT PHOTOS
Pa
t
h
:
M
:
\
D
W
G
-
2
0
\
2
0
5
2
-
1
5
.
1
1
0
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
P
H
O
T
O
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
.
m
x
d
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 1
Photograph 3
Photograph 5
Photograph 2
Photograph 4
Photograph 6
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 7
Photograph 9
Photograph 11
Photograph 8
Photograph 10
Photograph 12
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 13
Photograph 15
Photograph 17
Photograph 14
Photograph 16
Photograph 18
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 19
Photograph 21
Photograph 23
Photograph 20
Photograph 22
Photograph 24
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 25
Photograph 27
Photograph 29
Photograph 26
Photograph 28
Photograph 30
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 31
Photograph 33
Photograph 35
Photograph 32
Photograph 34
Photograph 36
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas April 2015
Photograph 37
Photograph 39
Photograph 41
Photograph 38
Photograph 40
Photograph 42
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas June 2015
Photograph 51
Photograph 53
Photograph 55
Photograph 52
Photograph 54
Photograph 56
Hunterwood Park Site Photos
Coppell, Texas June 2015
Photograph 57
Photograph 59
Photograph 58
Photograph 60
Er
o
s
i
o
n
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
TRIBUTA
R
Y
G
-
1
HEAD CUT
500
495
500
495
490485
490
485
505
495
490
50
0
5
0
5
505
500
495
EROSION LOCATION EXHIBIT
HUNTERWOOD PARKCOPPELL, TEXAS
TX
R
E
G
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
F
-
1
4
4
3
9
T
X
R
E
G
.
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
L
S
-
1
0
1
9
3
8
-
0
5
°0 5025
Feet
1 inch = 50 feet
August 13, 2015
NOTE DATUM
NAD 1983 TEXAS STATE PLANENORTH CENTRAL ZONE FIPS 4202
KEY TO FEATURES
STREAM CENTERLINE
CRITICAL EROSION LOCATION
NEGLIGIBLE EROSION LOCATION
Pa
t
h
:
M
:
\
D
W
G
-
2
0
\
2
0
5
2
-
1
5
.
1
1
0
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
E
R
O
S
I
O
N
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
.
m
x
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
HEARTHSTONE LANE
DILLARD LANE
TRIBUTA
R
Y
G
-
1
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS EXHIBIT
HUNTERWOOD PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
TX
R
E
G
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
F
-
1
4
4
3
9
T
X
R
E
G
.
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
L
S
-
1
0
1
9
3
8
-
0
5
°0 10050Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
December 22, 2015
NOTE DATUM
NAD 1983 TEXAS STATE PLANENORTH CENTRAL ZONE FIPS 4202
KEY TO FEATURES
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Pa
t
h
:
M
:
\
D
W
G
-
2
0
\
2
0
5
2
-
1
5
.
1
1
0
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
J
U
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
W
A
T
E
R
S
W
O
R
K
M
A
P
.
m
x
d
Issues No Notification Pre-construction Notification (PCN)Individual Permit (IP)L e n g t h o f S t a b i l i z a t i o n A c t i v i t y ≤ 5 0 0 f t > 5 0 0 f t N o t S p e c i f i e d
D i s c h a r g e p e r R u n n i n g F o o t a l o n g B a n k B e l o w O H WM A V G ≤ 1 y d 3/ f t A V G > 1 y d 3/ f t N o t S p e c i f i e d
Nationwide Permit 13
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
W
o
r
k
M
a
p
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
HEARTHSTONE LANE
DILLARD LANE
505
500
510
505
505
500
505
500
500495
510
505
51
0
505
495 495
49
0
4
9
0
500
49
5
50
5
50
5
510
51
0
5
0
5
4
9
5
500
500
495
490
4
8
5
490
485
505
485FLOODPLAIN WORK MAPHUNTERWOOD PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
TX
R
E
G
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
F
-
1
4
4
3
9
T
X
R
E
G
.
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
L
S
-
1
0
1
9
3
8
-
0
5
°0 10050Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
December 23, 2015
NOTE DATUM
NAD 1983 TEXAS STATE PLANENORTH CENTRAL ZONE FIPS 4202
KEY TO FEATURES
STREAM CENTERLINE
CROSS SECTIONS
2-YEAR FULLY-DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN
100-YEAR FULLY-DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN
Pa
t
h
:
M
:
\
D
W
G
-
2
0
\
2
0
5
2
-
1
5
.
1
1
0
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
F
L
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
W
O
R
K
M
A
P
.
m
x
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
HEARTHSTONE LANE
DILLARD LANE
TRIBUT
A
R
Y
G
-
1
HEAD CUT BANK STABILIZATION
BANK STABILIZATION
BANK STABILIZATION
TIE WALL TO EXISTINGCONCRETE BAG WALL
EXISTING CONCRETEBAG WALL
49
0
485
505
500
5
1
0
5
0
5
510
50
5
510
50
5
500495
500
500
500
500
500
5
0
5
510
505
510
51
0
5
0
5
500
500
495
490 495
4
8
5
485490
510
505
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT
HUNTERWOOD PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
TX
R
E
G
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
F
-
1
4
4
3
9
T
X
R
E
G
.
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
F
I
R
M
L
S
-
1
0
1
9
3
8
-
0
5
°0 10050Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
December 7, 2015
NOTE DATUM
NAD 1983 TEXAS STATE PLANENORTH CENTRAL ZONE FIPS 4202
KEY TO FEATURES
STREAM CENTERLINE
GRADE CONTROL
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Pa
t
h
:
M
:
\
D
W
G
-
2
0
\
2
0
5
2
-
1
5
.
1
1
0
\
D
e
s
i
g
n
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
.
m
x
d
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
’
s
O
p
i
n
i
o
n
o
f
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
s
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Site Access 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
75,000.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
2 Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit 1 EA 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
3 Unclassified Excavation 600 CY 50.00$ 30,000.00$
4 Install Compacted Fill 1500 CY 50.00$ 75,000.00$
5 Install Rock Rip-rap (18-in)200 CY 150.00$ 30,000.00$
6 Install Grade Control 12 EA 3,000.00$ 36,000.00$
7 Install Gabion Walls (Quantity Includes 3 Walls)470 CY 300.00$ 141,000.00$
315,500.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
8 Mobilization\Demobilization (10%)1 LS 40,250.00$ 40,250.00$
9 Temporary Erosion, Sediment & Water Pollution Control 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
52,250.00$
445,000.00$
$89,000
$85,000
$619,000
ASSUMPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs based on Preliminary Engineering.
Coordination with franchise utilities, such as electric, gas, and fiber optic not included.
Utility connection, construction permits, inspection, bonds, and impact fees not included.
Construction staking during installation not included.
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 20%
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN
GRAND TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Date: December 22, 2015 Principal: Ryan Plasse, PE
DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION TOTAL
EARTHWORK
EARTHWORK TOTAL
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
GABION WALL
Project: Hunterwood Park PK Project No.: 2052-15.110
Prepared by: Pacheco Koch PM: Ryan Mortensen, PE
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Site Access 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
2 Remove & Dispose of Existing Concrete Bag Wall 1800 SF 10.00$ 18,000.00$
93,000.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
3 Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit 1 EA 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
4 Unclassified Excavation 1000 CY 50.00$ 50,000.00$
5 Install Compacted Fill 2500 CY 50.00$ 125,000.00$
6 Install Rock Rip-rap (18-in)300 CY 150.00$ 45,000.00$
7 Install Grade Control 12 EA 3,000.00$ 36,000.00$
8 Install Gabion Walls (Quantity Includes 3 Walls)670 CY 300.00$ 201,000.00$
460,500.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
9 Mobilization\Demobilization (10%)1 LS 56,550.00$ 56,550.00$
10 Temporary Erosion, Sediment & Water Pollution Control 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
$68,550
$625,000
$125,000
$110,000
$860,000
ASSUMPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
GABION WALL (EXTENDED)
Project: Hunterwood Park PK Project No.: 2052-15.110
Prepared by: Pacheco Koch PM: Ryan Mortensen, PE
Date: December 22, 2015 Principal: Ryan Plasse, PE
DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION TOTAL
EARTHWORK
EARTHWORK TOTAL
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs based on Preliminary Engineering.
Coordination with franchise utilities, such as electric, gas, and fiber optic not included.
Utility connection, construction permits, inspection, bonds, and impact fees not included.
Construction staking during installation not included.
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 20%
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN
GRAND TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Site Access 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
75,000.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
2 Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit 1 EA 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
3 Unclassified Excavation 600 CY 50.00$ 30,000.00$
4 Install Compacted Fill 1500 CY 50.00$ 75,000.00$
5 Install Rock Rip-rap (18-in)200 CY 150.00$ 30,000.00$
6 Install Grade Control 12 EA 3,000.00$ 36,000.00$
7 Install Soil Nails (Assumed Length: 20-ft)250 EA 360.00$ 90,000.00$
8 Install Wall w/ Soil Nails (Quantity Includes 3 Walls)4200 SF 50.00$ 210,000.00$
474,500.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
9 Mobilization\Demobilization (10%)1 LS 56,150.00$ 56,150.00$
10 Temporary Erosion, Sediment & Water Pollution Control 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
$68,150
$620,000
$124,000
$105,000
$849,000
ASSUMPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 20%
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN
GRAND TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Coordination with franchise utilities, such as electric, gas, and fiber optic not included.
Utility connection, construction permits, inspection, bonds, and impact fees not included.
Construction staking during installation not included.
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs based on Preliminary Engineering.
Date: December 22, 2015 Principal: Ryan Plasse, PE
DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION TOTAL
EARTHWORK
EARTHWORK TOTAL
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
SOIL NAIL WALL
Project: Hunterwood Park PK Project No.: 2052-15.110
Prepared by: Pacheco Koch PM: Ryan Mortensen, PE
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
1 Clearing, Grubbing & Site Access 1 LS 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$
2 Remove & Dispose of Existing Concrete Bag Wall 1800 SF 10.00$ 18,000.00$
93,000.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
3 Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit 1 EA 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$
4 Unclassified Excavation 1000 CY 50.00$ 50,000.00$
5 Install Compacted Fill 2500 CY 50.00$ 125,000.00$
6 Install Rock Rip-rap (18-in)300 CY 250.00$ 75,000.00$
8 Install Grade Control 12 EA 3,000.00$ 36,000.00$
9 Install Soil Nails (Assumed Length: 20-ft)300 EA 360.00$ 108,000.00$
10 Install Wall w/ Soil Nails (Quantity Includes 3 Walls)6000 SF 50.00$ 300,000.00$
697,500.00$
ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL
11 Mobilization\Demobilization (10%)1 LS 80,250.00$ 80,250.00$
12 Temporary Erosion, Sediment & Water Pollution Control 1 LS 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$
$92,250
$885,000
$177,000
$150,000
$1,212,000
ASSUMPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
SOIL NAIL WALL (EXTENDED)
Project: Hunterwood Park PK Project No.: 2052-15.110
Prepared by: Pacheco Koch PM: Ryan Mortensen, PE
GRAND TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Date: December 22, 2015 Principal: Ryan Plasse, PE
DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION TOTAL
EARTHWORK
EARTHWORK TOTAL
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Costs based on Preliminary Engineering.
Coordination with franchise utilities, such as electric, gas, and fiber optic not included.
Utility connection, construction permits, inspection, bonds, and impact fees not included.
Construction staking during installation not included.
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL
TOTAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 20%
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
13 May 2015
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers, Inc.
8350 N. Central Expressway; Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75206
Re: Waters of the United States Delineation and Section 404 Permitting Assessment–Bank stabilization
activities located on an approximately 10.8 acre area within Hunterwood Park in the City of Coppell,
Dallas County, Texas.
Dear Mr. Mortensen,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC. (IES) performed a site survey to identify any water features that meet a
definition of a water of the United States on an approximately 10.8 acre area located within Hunterwood Park in
the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas (Attachment A, Figure 1). This report will ultimately assess and delineate
potentially jurisdictional waters to ensure compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
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 Clean Water Act (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 may be 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;
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:
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM Page 2
Hunterwood Park – Waters of the United States Delineation
13 May 2015
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;
3. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
4. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section;
5. The territorial seas;
6. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-
6 above.
7. 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), the
Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) digital soil database for Dallas County (Attachment A, Figure 3), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Attachment A, Figure 4), and recent aerial
photographs of the proposed project site were studied to identify possible waters of the United States and areas
prone to wetland development. Ms. Shannon Jones and Mr. Shae Kipp of IES conducted the delineation in the
field in accordance with the USACE procedures on 28 April 2015.
Wetland determinations and 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). 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 other water resources (i.e., non-wetland) were delineated in the field at the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM). The 33 Code of Federal Regulations (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.
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM Page 3
Hunterwood Park – Waters of the United States Delineation
13 May 2015
Water feature boundaries were recorded on a Trimble GeoExplorer XT global positioning system (GPS) unit capable
of sub-meter accuracy. Photographs were also taken at representative points, and their locations recorded, within
the project site (Attachment B).
RESULTS
Literature Review
The USGS topographic maps (Grapevine 7.5’ Quadrangle, 1982, Carrollton 7.5’ Quadrangle, 1982) (see Attachment
A, Figure 2) illustrate one water feature, an unnamed tributary of Grapevine Creek. The elevation within the
project site was illustrated between 490 and 510 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
The Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas illustrated two soil series within the limits of the project site: Axtell fine
sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes and Silawa fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (see Attachment A, Figure 3).
These soil series are not listed on the National Hydric Soils for Dallas County prepared by the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils (revision March 2014). The soil survey did illustrate one water feature, an unnamed
tributary of Grapevine Creek, within the project site.
The FEMA FIRM (Map Panels 48113C0155K and 48113C0135K, effective 06 July 2014) (see Attachment A, Figure 4)
illustrates the majority of the project site within Hatched Zone AE (Floodway areas in Zone AE; Zone AE are Special
Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood; Base flood elevations determined).
There is one water feature, Tributary G-1 of Grapevine Creek, identified within the project site on the FEMA FIRM.
Site Survey
The project site was comprised of two plant communities; a Forested Riparian Corridor community and a
Maintained/Urban matrix community. The Forested Riparian Corridor community was comprised of trees and
shrubs along the bank of the channel. Species observed within the forested riparian corridor included American
elm (Ulmus americana), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), cottonwood (Populus deltoids), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata),
black willow (Salix nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), pecan (Carya illinoensis) and
Osage-orange (Maclura pomifera), with an understory of poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Chinese ligustrum
Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Texas spiderwort (Tradescantia humilus), western
ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), narrowleaf marsh elder (Iva angustifolia),
yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin), white clover (Trifolium repens), Virginia
creeper (Parthenosiccus quinquefolia), and Carolina snailseed (Cocculus carolinus). The Maintained/Urban Matrix
community was observed within Hunterwood Park and behind residential properties. Vegetation observed in the
maintained herbaceous community included Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum
secondatum), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and white clover.
The topography of the area was gently sloping from west to east with the stream channel cut into the landscape
from excessive streambank erosion. All water features were delineated within the project site are detailed in
Table 1 and the paragraphs below. Field investigation identified the presence of one water feature, an
intermittent tributary of Grapevine Creek observed within the project area (Attachment A, Figure 5).
Table 1. Waters Delineated within the Project Site
Water
Identification Post-Rapanos Classification
Potential Water of
the United States?
Hydrology
Characteristics
Length
(Linear Feet)
Area
(Acres)
Tributary 1 RPW Yes Intermittent 4,395 0.71
JURISDICTIONAL TOTAL 4,395 0.71
Tributary 1 was an unnamed tributary of Grapevine Creek observed through the center of the project site. Flow
was observed at the time of the evaluation and the feature was observed with an OHWM delineated by a natural
line impressed in the bank, as well as an established wetland fringe. The water surface elevation of the tributary
was higher than the OHWM during time of the evaluation, due to recent rainfall activity and ranged from 3 to 18
feet. There were three bank stabilization areas along the tributary. South of Hunterwood Park, approximately 16
feet of gabion baskets were installed along the right side of the channel to stabilize the bank and reduce erosion.
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM Page 4
Hunterwood Park – Waters of the United States Delineation
13 May 2015
East of Hunterwood Park, approximately 280 feet downstream of the first bank stabilization area exists another
gabion basket structure along the right side of the channel, again to prevent erosion and stabilize the bank.
Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of the second bank stabilization area, is a final bank stabilization area in
which bag revetments were used to stabilize the bank and prevent erosion and scoring along the right bank.
Based on the level of inundation and the established bank vegetation observed, it is IES’ opinion that the tributary
would be considered to be intermittent. The unnamed tributary of Grapevine Creek flows directly into Grapevine
Creek, a RPW, which ultimately flows into the Elm Fork Trinity River, a TNW. As such, it is IES’ professional opinion
that Tributary 1 would meet a definition of a water of the United States as a tributary with an indirect connection
to a TNW and would be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA.
SECTION 404 PERMIT ASSESSMENT
Activities that result in the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States are regulated under
Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE has established the Nationwide Permit (NWP) program to efficiently authorize
common activities that do not significantly impact waters of the United States. The USACE has the responsibility to
authorize permitting under a NWP or to require an Individual Permit (IP). The most current NWPs were issued on
19 March 2012.
Ideally, the USACE encourages potential Permittees to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the United States.
Typically, if discharges result in the loss of less than 0.5 acre of waters of the United States, then the project could
be authorized by a NWP with the potential for a pre-construction notification (PCN) to the USACE per General
Condition 31. If, after a professional delineation and a USACE jurisdictional determination are performed, the total
loss to waters of the United States is greater than 0.5 acre, an IP would likely be required. If impacts to tributaries
are greater than 300 linear feet, a waiver must be requested from the district engineer concluding that the
discharge will result in minimal adverse effects.
Proposed activities that could impact waters of the United States would be associated with the bank stabilization
activities. These activities could be authorized under NWP 13 – Bank Stabilization, depending on the size and
nature of the impacts. NWP 13 authorizes bank stabilization activities necessary for erosion prevention, provided
the activity meets all of the criteria listed in Attachment C. The activity also authorizes temporary structures, fills,
and work necessary to construct the bank stabilization activity. Under NWP 13, a PCN would be required for
submittal to the USACE for verification prior to commencing the activity if the bank stabilization activity involves
discharges into special aquatic sites, is in excess of 500 feet in length, or will involve the discharge of greater than
an average of one cubic yard per funning foot along the bank below the plane of the OHWM or the high tide line.
Compensatory mitigation is typically not required for projects whose impacts are below 0.1 acre or less than 300
linear feet of stream. However, should these thresholds be exceeded, compensatory mitigation will be required.
Mitigation
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 proposed impacts to waters of the United States are
not known at the time of this letter report. Therefore, it is unknown whether compensatory mitigation will be
required; however, in the event the impacts are such that compensatory mitigation is required, the following
formulas provide a cost estimate. There are multiple mitigation banks available; however, the following multipliers
and cost estimates per credit are being provided for Trinity River Mitigation Bank (TRMB) and Mill Branch
Mitigation Bank (MBMB) following the USACE Fort Worth District Stream Mitigation Method Guidance (SMM).
These two banks are used here due to the project being located in their primary service area and advertised costs
per credit. Under the SMM, each project proponent must provide at least 50 percent of their compensatory
mitigation through a mitigation bank that has conducted either in-channel or riparian buffer
creation/enhancement activities (i.e., MBMB). The remainder of the compensatory mitigation can be conducted in
a ‘Legacy’ mitigation bank (i.e., TRMB). The MBMB is established to sell credits following the USACE Texas Rapid
Assessment Method (TxRAM), which IES scored the existing tributary to be a 54.6 out of a possible 100. TRMB is
established based on multipliers based on hydrologic flow regimes for each stream. The following provides the
formulas for calculating the compensatory mitigation cost for each aquatic resource
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM Page 5
Hunterwood Park – Waters of the United States Delineation
13 May 2015
50% In-channel Credits from Mill Branch
Length of Impact (in linear feet) X 50% X TxRAM Score (divided by 100) = number of MBMB credits X
$1,400 per credit = Cost
50% In-channel Credits from Trinity River Mitigation Bank
Length of Impact (in feet) X 50% X 0.008 multiplier for intermittent tributaries = number of TRMB credits X
$17,500 per credit = Cost
CONCLUSIONS
To summarize the delineation, Tributary 1 was a water of the United States observed running through the center
of the project site. 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.
IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you and Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers 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 Shannon Jones at 972/562-7672 (rreinecke@intenvsol.com or sjones@intenvsol.com).
Sincerely,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC.
Rudi Reinecke
Vice President
Attachments
File ref: 04.002.058
ATTACHMENT A
Figures
Figure 1General Location Map
1 inch = 3,500 feet
0 3,500 7,000 10,500Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
.
Map Extent
Project Site
Figure 2U.S. Geological SurveyTopographic Map
1 inch = 700 feet01,400 2,800700Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: USGS Topographic MapGrapevine 7.5' Quadrangle, 1982Carrollton 7.5' Quadrangle, 1982
Project Site .
Figure 3Soils Map
1 inch = 700 feet
0 350 700Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: 2007 USDANRCS Digital Soils DatabaseAerial photography: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Project Site
Soil Series
Soil series outside the project site
11 - Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
12 - Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
61 - Silawa fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
67 - Stephens slitly clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes
.
Figure 4Federal Emergency Management AgencyFlood Insurance Rate Map
1 inch = 700 feet01,400 2,800700Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: FEMA FIRM Map Panel48113C0155K & 48113C0135KEffective Date: 07/06/2014
Project Site .FEMA FIRM Zone DescriptionsZone X - Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplainZone X - Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood
Zone AE - Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood; Base flood elevations determinedZone AE - Floodway areas in Zone AE
Zone A - Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood; No base flood elevations determined
Figure 5Water Features identified within the Project Site
1 inch = 325 feet
0 650 1,300325Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Project Site
Features that meet a definition of a water of the United States
Tributary .
ATTACHMENT B
Representative Photographs
Ph
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
1
i
n
c
h
=
2
3
5
f
e
e
t
0
47
0
94
0
1,
4
1
0
23
5
Fe
e
t
Co
u
n
t
y
:
D
a
l
l
a
s
St
a
t
e
:
T
e
x
a
s
Da
t
e
m
a
p
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
:
5
/
4
/
2
0
1
5
So
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
2
U
S
D
A
F
S
A
T
O
P
Ae
r
i
a
l
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
.
Su
r
v
e
y
A
r
e
a
Ph
o
t
o
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
e
e
t
a
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
o
n
o
f
a
w
a
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
Photograph 1 Photograph 2
Photograph 3 Photograph 4
Photograph 5 Photograph 6
Photograph 7 Photograph 8
Photograph 9 Photograph 10
Photograph 11 Photograph 12
Photograph 13 Photograph 14
Photograph 15 Photograph 16
Photograph 17 Photograph 18
Photograph 19 Photograph 20
Photograph 21 Photograph 22
Photograph 23 Photograph 24
Photograph 25 Photograph 26
Photograph 27 Photograph 28
Photograph 29 Photograph 30
Photograph 31 Photograph 32
Photograph 33 Photograph 34
Photograph 35 Photograph 36
Photograph 37 Photograph 38
Photograph 39 Photograph 40
Photograph 41 Photograph 42
Photograph 43 Photograph 44
Photograph 45 Photograph 46
Photograph 47 Photograph 48
En
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
13 May 2015
Mr. Ryan Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers, Inc.
8350 N. Central Expressway; Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75206
Re: Endangered Species Habitat Assessment – Bank Stabilization activities located on an approximately 10.8
acre area within Hunterwood Park in the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas
Dear Mr. Mortensen,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC (IES) performed a protected species habitat assessment on approximately
10.8 acres located within Hunterwood Park in the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas (the “project site”)
(Attachment A, Figures 1). This habitat assessment was performed to satisfy the requirements regarding the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the State of Texas Threatened and Endangered Species regulations.
Additionally, specific avian species are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. The following report is a list of the Federally and State-listed protected species for
Dallas County and their preferred habitats, a summary of the habitats present on the site, a description of the
proposed action, and an evaluation of whether or not preferred habitat is present on the site, and whether or not
the proposed action would affect listed species.
INTRODUCTION
Federally Protected Species
The ESA of 1973 (Public Law [PL] 93-205) and the amendments of 1988 (PL 100-578) were enacted to provide a
program of preservation for endangered and threatened species and to provide protection for ecosystems upon
which these species depend for their survival. The ESA requires all Federal agencies to implement protection
programs for designated species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Responsibility for
the listing of an endangered or threatened species and for the development of recovery plans lies with the
Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Commerce. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for
implementing the ESA within the United States.
An endangered species is a species, which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is a species likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Proposed species are those, which have been formally submitted to Congress for
official listing as endangered or threatened.
In addition, the USFWS has identified species, which are candidates for possible addition to the list of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) under the ESA. The USFWS maintains a candidate list
to: (1) provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect land planning decisions, (2) solicit input to
identify candidates not requiring protection or additional species that may require protection under the ESA, and
(3) solicit information needed to prioritize the order in which species will be proposed for listing. Candidate
species have no legal protection under the ESA.
Mr. Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Hunterwood Park – Protected Species Habitat Assessment
13 May 2015 P a g e | 2
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was Federally delisted from the ESA as of 08 August 2007, but continues
to be monitored by the USFWS for a period of 20 years with sampling events occurring every five years beginning
in 2009. This species is still Federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as, the
MBTA, and being a State-listed protected species.
The MBTA of 1918 (16 U.S. Code [USC] 703-712) and its amendments, makes it illegal for anyone to “take, possess,
import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the
parts, nests, or eggs of such as bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued by Federal regulations. In
accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (PL 108-447) all species native to the United States
or its territories, which are those that occur as a result of natural biological or ecological processes, are included
under the protections of the MBTA.
State of Texas Protected Species
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), Wildlife Diversity Program (WDP), maintains computerized
records of state-listed threatened and endangered species by county. The State of Texas does not list threatened
and endangered species using the same criteria as the Federal government. When the USFWS lists a plant species,
the State of Texas then lists that plant. Thus, the list of threatened and endangered plants in Texas is the same as
the Federal list.
The state has separate laws governing the listing of animal species as threatened or endangered. Threatened and
endangered animal species in Texas are those species so designated according to Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Code and Section 65.171 - 65.184 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code. Animals that are
not currently listed by the Federal government may be listed as threatened or endangered by the TPWD.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants under the ESA was
obtained through the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) and from the TPWD WDP and
the Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD). The TPWD information contains the computerized records of state-
listed threatened and endangered species that occur or could potentially occur within Dallas County. The
preferred habitat was obtained and summarized for each of these listed species. During the field survey, all
habitat features within and adjacent to the project site to determine whether there was any potential for
protected species habitat. This survey was not designed to identify the presence of protected species; however, if
any species were observed, they were recorded. Photographs were taken at representative points, illustrating
common habitat communities within the project site (Attachment B).
RESULTS
Literature Review
According to the USFWS, six species, Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica
chrysoparia), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), Red Knot
(Calidris canutus rufa), and Whooping Crane (Grus americana) are listed as Federally protected (i.e., threatened or
endangered) with the potential to occur within Dallas County. No Federally listed critical habitat for these species
is located within Dallas County or within the vicinity of the project site. Two of the species listed as threatened
within Dallas County, Red Knot, and Piping Plover, are conditionally listed as potentially occurring in the county on
the basis that the proposed development is for wind energy. As this project is not a wind energy project, these
species are not likely to be adversely impacted. Attachment C identifies the Federally and State-listed protected
species that could potentially occur within Dallas County.
The TPWD lists 10 avian species, three mollusks, and three reptiles as threatened or endangered with the potential
to occur within Dallas County. Five of the 10 avian species are the same as the Federally protected species with
the addition of Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), its subspecies, the American Peregrine Falcon (F. peregrinus
anatum), Bald Eagle, White-face Ibis (Plegadis chihi), and Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). All three mollusks,
Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus), and Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia
askewi), are considered threatened. The three reptiles species, which include the alligator snapping turtle
Mr. Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Hunterwood Park – Protected Species Habitat Assessment
13 May 2015 P a g e | 3
(Macrochelys temminckii), Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)
are also all considered threatened.
Site Survey
Mr. Shae Kipp and Ms. Shannon Jones of IES evaluated the project area on 28 April 2015. This survey was designed
to provide a habitat evaluation of the overall project site with the primary focus on the plant community, but also
with a description of individual habitat characteristics within each plant community.
The project site was comprised of two plant communities; a Forested Riparian Corridor community and a
Maintained/Urban matrix community (Attachment A, Figure 2). The Forested Riparian Corridor community was
comprised of trees and shrubs along the bank of the channel. Species observed within the forested riparian
corridor included American elm (Ulmus americana), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), cottonwood (Populus deltoids),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black willow (Salix nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach),
pecan (Carya illinoensis) and Osage-orange (Maclura pomifera), with an understory of poison-ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Chinese ligustrum (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Texas spiderwort
(Tradescantia humilus), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), narrowleaf
marsh elder (Iva angustifolia), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin), white clover
(Trifolium repens), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and Carolina snailseed (Cocculus carolinus). The
Maintained/Urban Matrix community was observed within Hunterwood Park and behind residential properties.
Vegetation observed in the maintained herbaceous community included Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), St.
Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secondatum), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and white clover.
Protected Species Assessment
Table 1 provides a summary of the state-listed and Federally listed species that could potentially occur within
Dallas County, as well as a brief description of their preferred habitat, whether this habitat is present within the
project site, and whether the proposed project would potentially affect the listed species.
No habitats located within the project site match the preferred habitats described for state-listed or Federally
listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in Dallas County. As this project is not a wind energy
project, no consideration for Piping Plover or Red Knot is necessary; additionally, no potential habitat for either
species was found within the project site.
The Forested Riparian Corridor habitat present within the project site was not suitable for nesting, feeding, or
stopover migration habitat for any of the Federally protected avian species. As visible on aerial photographs and
site photographs, the tributary of Grapevine Creek is densely vegetated along its banks and does not contain the
sand and gravel bars necessary for Interior Least Tern nesting habitat. Nor would this vegetation community be
suitable habitat for the Black-capped Vireo or the Golden-cheeked Warbler, as the site lacked the specific
vegetation matrix (oak-juniper woodlands, specifically Ashe juniper) and patchy vegetation ecotone desired by
these species. None of these habitat types would be considered suitable stopover habitat for the Whooping
Crane. Grassland habitat, as noted in the preferred stopover habitat requirements for the Whooping Crane,
typically denote large areas of remote and unmaintained prairie that they use for feeding. Thus, it is likely that
they would not prefer this habitat due to close proximity of human disturbance and activity.
Any occurrence of the Peregrine Falcon, its subspecies American Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, and Wood Stork,
would be in relation to stopover during migration; however, no suitable stopover or nesting habitat for any of
these species was observed within the project site. Because the tributary within the project site was intermittent,
had riverbed scouring, and had sand and silt deposition, it did not contain desirable habitat for the Alligator
snapping turtle, Louisiana pigtoe, Texas pigtoe or Texas heelsplitter. The Texas horned lizard prefers “sparse
vegetation,” which does not occur within the project site.
Due to the riparian forest habitat observed and the close proximity to the tributary, low quality potential habitat
for the timber rattlesnake was identified within the project site. Although no individuals were identified during the
site visit, the identified habitat would be assumed not occupied by the timber rattlesnake based on (1) the age-
stratification of the vegetation making the habitat less preferable and (2) the number of past surveys performed
within the surrounding area in similar habitat that has not yielded any evidence of occupation.
Mr. Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Hunterwood Park – Protected Species Habitat Assessment
13 May 2015 P a g e | 4
Table 1. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered
Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in Dallas County, Texas
Species Federal
Status
State
Status Description of Suitable Habitat Habitat
Present1
Species
Effect2
American peregrine
falcon
(Falco peregrines
anatum)
DL T
Year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff
eyries; also, migrant across state from more northern breeding areas
in U.S. and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies
wide range of habitats during migration, including urban,
concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant,
stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores,
coastlines, and barrier islands.
No No
Peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus) DL T
Both subspecies migrate across the state from more northern
breeding areas in U.S. and Canada to winter along coast and farther
south; subspecies (F. p. anatum) is also a resident breeder in west
Texas; the two subspecies’ listing statuses differ, F.p. tundrius is no
longer listed in Texas; but because the subspecies are not easily
distinguishable at a distance, reference is generally made only to the
species level; see subspecies for habitat.
No No
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
DL DL
Found primarily near rivers and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on
cliffs near water; communally roosts, especially in winter; hunts live
prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds.
No No
Black-capped Vireo
(Vireo atricapilla)LE E
The black-capped vireo inhabits oak-juniper woodlands, requiring a
very specific shrub layer and grassland layer for nesting and feeding
cover. Rocky hillsides, steep slopes and ravines, with dense shrubs,
bare ground patches and native grasses are most preferred areas.
Dense deciduous vegetation close to the ground is another key factor
for nesting sites that males will tend to return to year after year.
No No
Golden-cheeked
Warbler (Setophaga
chrysopharia)
LE E
Nesting typically occurs for the golden-cheeked warbler in tall, closed
canopy mature stands of Ashe juniper mixed with oak and other
hardwood species. Steep canyons with adjacent upland areas are
common areas for this habitat.
No No
Interior Least Tern
(Sterna antillarum
athalassos)
LE E
Nests along sand and gravel bars within braided streams and rivers;
also known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches,
wastewater treatment plants, gravel mines, etc.). When breeding,
forages within a few hundred feet of colony; Conditionally listed for
Wind Energy Production Projects.
No No
Piping Plover
(Charadrius
melodus)
LE T
Wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast; beaches and bayside
mud or salt flats; Conditionally listed for Wind Energy Production
Projects.
No No
Red Knot
(Calidris canutus
rufa)
T
Perennial waters; lakes, rivers, tributaries with gravel, cobble banks;
conditionally listed in wind energy project types; Conditionally listed
for Wind Energy Production Projects.
No No
White-faced Ibis
(Plegadis chihi) --- T
Prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but will
attend brackish and saltwater habitats;
nests in marshes, in low trees, on the ground in bulrushes or reeds,
or on floating mats
No No
Whooping Crane
(Grus americana) LE E
Potential migrant via plains throughout most of the state to the coast.
Utilizes estuaries, prairie marshes, savannah, grasslands, croplands,
and pastures; will use large wetland areas associated with lakes for
roosting and feeding. Winter resident at Aransas NWR, and the
coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun, and Refugio counties.
No No
Wood Stork
(Mycteria americana) --- T
Forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and
other shallow standing water, including salt-water; usually roosts
communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading
birds (i.e. active heronries); breeds in Mexico and birds move into
Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands. Even those
associated with forested areas nested in Texas, but no breeding
records since 1960.
No No
Mr. Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Hunterwood Park – Protected Species Habitat Assessment
13 May 2015 P a g e | 5
Species Federal
Status
State
Status Description of Suitable Habitat Habitat
Present1
Species
Effect2
Louisiana pigtoe
(Pleurobema riddellii) --- T
Streams and moderate-size rivers, usually flowing water on
substrates of mud, sand, and gravel; not generally known from
impoundments; Sabine, Neches, and Trinity (historic) River basins.
No No
Texas heelsplitter
(Potamilus
amphichaenus)
--- T Quiet waters in mud or sand and also in reservoirs. Sabine, Neches,
and Trinity River basins.No No
Texas pigtoe
(Fusconaia askewi) --- T
Rivers with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas
associated with fallen trees or other structures; east Texas River
basins, Sabine through Trinity rivers as well as San Jacinto River
No No
Alligator snapping
turtle (Machrochelys
temminckii)
--- T
Perennial water bodies; deep water of rivers, canals, lakes, and
oxbows; also swamps, bayous, and ponds near deep running water;
sometimes enters brackish coastal waters; usually In water with mud
bottom and abundant aquatic vegetation; may migrate several miles
along rivers; active March-October; breeds April-October
No No
Texas horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
cornutum)
--- T
Open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation, including
grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees; soil may vary in
texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows,
or hides under rock when inactive; breeds March-September.
No No
Timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus) --- T
Swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian
zones, abandoned farmland; limestone bluffs, sandy soil or black
clay; prefers dense ground cover, i.e. grapevines or palmetto.
Yes No
LE – Federally Listed Endangered
LT – Federally Listed Threatened
DL – Federally Delisted
E – State Listed Endangered
T - State Listed Threatened
1Habitat Present? – Does the habitat located within the project site match the habitat requirements for that particular protected species?
2Species Effect? – Will the proposed project potentially affect a protected species?
Data Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC (06 May 2015), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (06 May 2015), and survey of project site.
Although the survey was designed to identify preferred habitats of listed species, and not to perform species-
specific surveys, no protected species were identified within the project site during investigations. As such, it is
highly unlikely that listed species would utilize the project site. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project
will have any adverse effect on state-listed or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
There are no provisions within the MBTA or within USFWS regulatory guidance allowing the take of migratory birds
that are unintentionally killed or injured as part of proposed project activities. Most recently, the U.S. 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that the MBTA made it a crime to kill any species listed under the MBTA, even accidentally.
Conversely, the 8th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have found that the MBTA applies only to actions directed
against migratory birds, such as hunting, not incidental losses from commercial activities such as wind energy
projects. As part of the proposed project, it is necessary to comply with the appropriate regulations for the
protection of birds. This involves analyzing potential impacts and implementing appropriate conservation
measures for all project activities. Migratory birds, not otherwise protected as Federally or State-listed and
endangered or threatened species, were observed within the project site. IES recommends that any land-clearing
activities or disturbance to potential/observed nesting sites occur outside of the primary nesting season for most
migratory birds (February 1 – July 31) after a biological survey has been performed to determine the
presence/absence of migratory species prior to construction initiation.
CONCLUSIONS
The Forested Riparian Corridor community and Maintained/Urban matrix community observed within the
project site does not match the preferred habitat descriptions described for any protected species listed in Dallas
County. As such, it is IES’ professional opinion that the proposed development will not disturb habitat necessary
for the lifecycle of any protected species listed in Dallas County. Therefore, no additional surveys should be
necessary for construction to begin in regards to endangered or threatened species.
Mr. Mortensen, P.E., CFM
Hunterwood Park – Protected Species Habitat Assessment
13 May 2015 P a g e | 6
Because native migratory birds were observed within the project site, IES would recommend that any land-clearing
activities or disturbance to potential/observed nesting sites occur outside of the primary nesting season to
minimize the potential for unintentional loss of non-mobile migratory birds.
IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you and Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers 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 Shannon Jones at 972/562-7672 (rreinecke@intenvsol.com or sjones@intenvsol.com).
Sincerely,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC.
Rudi Reinecke
Vice President
File ref: 04.002.058
ATTACHMENT A
Figures
Figure 1General Location Map
1 inch = 3,500 feet
0 3,500 7,000 10,500Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
.
Map Extent
Project Site
Figure 2Vegetation CommunitiesIdentified within the Project Site
1 inch = 325 feet
0 650 1,300325Feet
County: DallasState: TexasDate map created: 04/29/2015Source: (c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
.
Project Site
Vegetation Communities
Forested Riparian Corridor
Maintained/Urban Matrix
ATTACHMENT C
Protected Species List
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hunterwood Park
IPaC Trust Resource Report
Generated May 06, 2015 09:22 AM MDT
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 2 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
US Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC Trust Resource Report
Project Description
NAMEHunterwood Park
PROJECT CODEYCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEY
LOCATIONDallas County, Texas
DESCRIPTIONBank Stabilization Project
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information
Species in this report are managed by:
Arlington Ecological Services Field Office2005 Ne Green Oaks BlvdSUITE 140Arlington, TX 76006-6247 (817) 277-1100
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 3 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered Species
Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the and should be considered as part of an effect analysisEndangered Species Programfor this project.
Birds
Black-capped Vireo
DESCRIPTION12 cm. Well-marked and distinctive vireo. Male has black head, white lores and eye-ring (giving spectacledappearance), olive upperparts, blackish wings fringed olive and two yellowish wing-bars. Whitish underparts witholive flanks. Red iris. Female duller and with grey head. Juvenile browner.
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07T
CRITICAL HABITAT has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
Golden-cheeked Warbler (=wood)
DESCRIPTIONThe golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia, GCWA) is a small, neo-tropical songbird weighing about 10grams (0.34 ounces) and is about 12 centimeters (4.7 inches) long (Pulich 1976, pp. 126-128). Adult GCWAmales have yellow cheeks outlined in black with a thin black line through each eye and extending backwards fromthe eye (Oberholser 1974, p. 750; Ridgway 1902, p. 565). Upper breast, throat, and back are black, and the lowerbreast and belly are white with some lateral black spot...
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07W
CRITICAL HABITAT has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
Least TernU.S.A. (AR, CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA_Miss. R. and tribs. N of Baton Rouge, MS_Miss. R., MO, MT, ND, NE, NM,OK, SD, TN, TX_except within 50 miles of coast)
DESCRIPTIONLeast terns are the smallest member of the gull and tern family. They are approximately 9" in length. Unlike gulls,terns will dive into the water for small fish. The body of least terns is predominately gray and white, with blackstreaking on the head. Least terns have a forked tail and narrow pointed wings. Least terns less than a year oldhave less distinctive black streaking on the head and less of a forked tail.
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07N
CRITICAL HABITAT has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 4 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Endangered
Threatened
ThreatenedPiping Plover Entire, except those areas where listed as endangered above
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIESWind Energy Projects
DESCRIPTIONSize: 18 cm (7.25 in) in length. Color: Breeding season: Pale brown above, lighter below; black band acrossforehead; bill orange with black tip; legs orange; white rump. Male: Complete or incomplete black band encirclesthe body at the breast. Female: Paler head band; incomplete breast band. Winter coloration: Bill black; all birdslack breast band and head band.
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079
CRITICAL HABITATThere is critical habitat designated for this species.final
Red Knot
THIS SPECIES ONLY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE FOLLOWING CONDITION APPLIESWind Energy Projects
DESCRIPTIONLength: 25-28 cm. Adults in spring: Above finely mottled with grays, black and light ochre, running into stripes oncrown; throat, breast and sides of head cinnamon-brown; dark gray line through eye; abdomen and undertailcoverts white; uppertail coverts white, barred with black. Adults in winter: Pale ashy gray above, from crown torump, with feathers on back narrowly edged with white; underparts white, the breast lightly streaked andspeckled, and the flanks narrowly barred with gray. Adults i...
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0DM
CRITICAL HABITAT has been designated for this species.No critical habitat
Whooping Crane Entire, except where listed as an experimental population
DESCRIPTIONThe whooping crane occurs only in North America and is North Americas tallest bird, with males approaching 1.5m (5 ft) when standing erect. The whooping crane adult plumage is snowy white except for black primaries, blackor grayish alula (specialized feathers attached to the upper leading end of the wing), sparse black bristly featherson the carmine crown and malar region (side of the head from the bill to the angle of the jaw), and a darkgray-black wedge-shaped patch on the nape. The comm...
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003
CRITICAL HABITATThere is critical habitat designated for this species.final
Critical Habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along withthe endangered species themselves.
There is no critical habitat within this project area
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 5 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Migratory Birds
Birds are protected by the and the Bald and Golden EagleMigratory Bird Treaty ActProtection Act.
Any activity which results in the of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unlesstakeauthorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( ). There are no provisions for1allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured.
You are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations for the protection ofbirds as part of this project. This involves analyzing potential impacts and implementingappropriate conservation measures for all project activities.
Bald Eagle
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONA large raptor, the bald eagle has a wingspread of about 7 feet. Adults have a dark brown body and wings, whitehead and tail, and a yellow beak. Juveniles are mostly brown with white mottling on the body, tail, and undersidesof wings. Adult plumage usually is obtained by the 6th year. In flight, the bald eagle often soars or glides with thewings held at a right angle to the body.
Bell's Vireo
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Burrowing Owl
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Dickcissel
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 6 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Fox Sparrow
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Harris's Sparrow
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Hudsonian Godwit
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONMigrating
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Lark Bunting
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Le Conte's Sparrow
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Least Bittern
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 7 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Little Blue Heron
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Loggerhead Shrike
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONYear-round
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Mississippi Kite
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Orchard Oriole
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Painted Bunting
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Prothonotary Warbler
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 8 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Red-headed Woodpecker
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONYear-round
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Rusty Blackbird
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Rusty Blackbird
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONBreeding
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
Short-eared Owl
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONThe short-eared owl is an owl of about 0.7 to 0.8 lbs with females slightly larger in size than males. Plumage isbrown, buff, white and rust colors. Patches of brown and buff occur mostly on the back side, while the undersideis colored more lightly, being mostly white. Females and males have similar plumage. Some distinguishingcharacteristics of this owl are its gray white fascial disk, and black coloring around yellow eyes. Juveniles havesimilar plumage to adults, but upper parts and head a...
Sprague's Pipit
This is a and has the highest priority for conservationbird of conservation concern
SEASONWintering
DESCRIPTIONNo description available
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 9 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Refuges
Any activity proposed on lands must undergo a 'CompatibilityNational Wildlife RefugeDetermination' conducted by the Refuge. If your project overlaps or otherwise impacts aRefuge, please contact that Refuge to discuss the authorization process.
There are no refuges within this project area
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 10 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
Wetlands
Impacts to and other aquatic habitats from your project may be subject toNWI wetlandsregulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal Statutes.
Project proponents should discuss the relationship of these requirements to their projectwith the Regulatory Program of the appropriate .U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District
DATA LIMITATIONSThe Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to producereconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. Themaps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identifiedbased on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent inthe use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site mayresult in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through imageanalysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, theexperience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and theamount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted todetermine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery orfield work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classificationsbetween the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
DATA EXCLUSIONSCertain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because ofthe limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands.These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found inthe intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Somedeepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excludedfrom the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerialimagery.
DATA PRECAUTIONSFederal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may defineand describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is noattempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits ofproprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish thegeographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Personsintending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetlandareas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerningspecified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect suchactivities.
Freshwater Forested/shrub Wetland
YCBDB-QQB6V-CMRGN-HHSGR-I6NFEYIPaC Trust Resource Report
05/06/2015 09:22 Page 11 Information for Planning and ConservationIPaCVersion 2.0.10
2 acres
7.42 acresPFO1A
Freshwater Pond
PUBHx
Last Revision:3/23/2015 4:03:00 PM
DALLAS COUNTY
BIRDS Federal Status State Status
American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum DL T
year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from
more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range
of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude
migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius DL
migrant throughout state from subspecies’ far northern breeding range, winters along coast and farther
south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and
barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines,
and barrier islands.
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL T
found primarily near rivers and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water; communally roosts,
especially in winter; hunts live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds
Black-capped Vireo Vireo atricapilla LE E
oak-juniper woodlands with distinctive patchy, two-layered aspect; shrub and tree layer with open, grassy
spaces; requires foliage reaching to ground level for nesting cover; return to same territory, or one nearby,
year after year; deciduous and broad-leaved shrubs and trees provide insects for feeding; species
composition less important than presence of adequate broad-leaved shrubs, foliage to ground level, and
required structure; nesting season March-late summer
Golden-cheeked Warbler Setophaga chrysoparia LE E
juniper-oak woodlands; dependent on Ashe juniper (also known as cedar) for long fine bark strips, only
available from mature trees, used in nest construction; nests are placed in various trees other than Ashe
juniper; only a few mature junipers or nearby cedar brakes can provide the necessary nest material; forage
for insects in broad-leaved trees and shrubs; nesting late March-early summer
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii
wintering individuals (not flocks) found in weedy fields or cut-over areas where lots of bunch grasses occur
along with vines and brambles; a key component is bare ground for running/walking
Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos LE E
subspecies is listed only when inland (more than 50 miles from a coastline); nests along sand and gravel
bars within braided streams, rivers; also know to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches, wastewater
treatment plants, gravel mines, etc); eats small fish and crustaceans, when breeding forages within a few
hundred feet of colony
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus DL T
both subspecies migrate across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter
along coast and farther south; subspecies (F. p. anatum) is also a resident breeder in west Texas; the two
subspecies’ listing statuses differ, F.p. tundrius is no longer listed in Texas; but because the subspecies are
not easily distinguishable at a distance, reference is generally made only to the species level; see subspecies
for habitat.
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.Page 1 of 4
Annotated County Lists of Rare Species
DALLAS COUNTY
BIRDS Federal Status State Status
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus LT T
wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast; beaches and bayside mud or salt flats
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa T
Red knots migrate long distances in flocks northward through the contiguous United States mainly April-
June, southward July-October. A small plump-bodied, short-necked shorebird that in breeding plumage,
typically held from May through August, is a distinctive and unique pottery orange color. Its bill is dark,
straight and, relative to other shorebirds, short-to-medium in length. After molting in late summer, this
species is in a drab gray-and-white non-breeding plumage, typically held from September through April. In
the non-breeding plumage, the knot might be confused with the omnipresent Sanderling. During this
plumage, look for the knot’s prominent pale eyebrow and whitish flanks with dark barring. The Red Knot
prefers the shoreline of coast and bays and also uses mudflats during rare inland encounters. Primary prey
items include coquina clam (Donax spp.) on beaches and dwarf surf clam (Mulinia lateralis) in bays, at least
in the Laguna Madre. Wintering Range includes- Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers,
Galveston, Jefferson, Kennedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, and Willacy. Habitat: Primarily
seacoasts on tidal flats and beaches, herbaceous wetland, and Tidal flat/shore.
Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii C
only in Texas during migration and winter, mid September to early April; short to medium distance, diurnal
migrant; strongly tied to native upland prairie, can be locally common in coastal grasslands, uncommon to
rare further west; sensitive to patch size and avoids edges.
Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea
open grasslands, especially prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near
human habitation or airports; nests and roosts in abandoned burrows
White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi T
prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats;
nests in marshes, in low trees, on the ground in bulrushes or reeds, or on floating mats
Whooping Crane Grus americana LE E
potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast; winters in coastal marshes of Aransas,
Calhoun, and Refugio counties
Wood Stork Mycteria americana T
forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including salt-
water; usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds (i.e. active
heronries); breeds in Mexico and birds move into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands,
even those associated with forested areas; formerly nested in Texas, but no breeding records since 1960
INSECTS Federal Status State Status
Black Lordithon rove beetle Lordithon niger
historically known from Texas
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.Page 2 of 4
Annotated County Lists of Rare Species
DALLAS COUNTY
MAMMALS Federal Status State Status
Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer
colonial and cave-dwelling; also roosts in rock crevices, old buildings, carports, under bridges, and even in
abandoned Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) nests; roosts in clusters of up to thousands of individuals;
hibernates in limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and gypsum cave of Panhandle during winter;
opportunistic insectivore
Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta
catholic; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers
wooded, brushy areas and tallgrass prairie
MOLLUSKS Federal Status State Status
Louisiana pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii T
streams and moderate-size rivers, usually flowing water on substrates of mud, sand, and gravel; not
generally known from impoundments; Sabine, Neches, and Trinity (historic) River basins
Texas heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus T
quiet waters in mud or sand and also in reservoirs. Sabine, Neches, and Trinity River basins
Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi T
rivers with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas associated with fallen trees or other
structures; east Texas River basins, Sabine through Trinity rivers as well as San Jacinto River
REPTILES Federal Status State Status
Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii T
perennial water bodies; deep water of rivers, canals, lakes, and oxbows; also swamps, bayous, and ponds
near deep running water; sometimes enters brackish coastal waters; usually in water with mud bottom and
abundant aquatic vegetation; may migrate several miles along rivers; active March-October; breeds April-
October
Texas garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis annectens
wet or moist microhabitats are conducive to the species occurrence, but is not necessarily restricted to them;
hibernates underground or in or under surface cover; breeds March-August
Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum T
open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation, including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby
trees; soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under
rock when inactive; breeds March-September
Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus T
swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland; limestone
bluffs, sandy soil or black clay; prefers dense ground cover, i.e. grapevines or palmetto
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.Page 3 of 4
Annotated County Lists of Rare Species
DALLAS COUNTY
PLANTS Federal Status State Status
Glen Rose yucca Yucca necopina
Texas endemic; grasslands on sandy soils and limestone outcrops; flowering April-June
Warnock's coral-root Hexalectris warnockii
in leaf litter and humus in oak-juniper woodlands on shaded slopes and intermittent, rocky creekbeds in
canyons; in the Trans Pecos in oak-pinyon-juniper woodlands in higher mesic canyons (to 2000 m [6550
ft]), primarily on igneous substrates; in Terrell County under Quercus fusiformis mottes on terrraces of
spring-fed perennial streams, draining an otherwise rather xeric limestone landscape; on the Callahan Divide
(Taylor County), the White Rock Escarpment (Dallas County), and the Edwards Plateau in oak-juniper
woodlands on limestone slopes; in Gillespie County on igneous substrates of the Llano Uplift; flowering
June-September; individual plants do not usually bloom in successive years
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.Page 4 of 4
Annotated County Lists of Rare Species
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Terracon Consultants, Inc.8901 Carpenter Freeway, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75247 Registration No. F-3272
P (214) 630 1010 F (214) 630 7070 terracon.com
August 14, 2015
Pacheco Koch8350 N Central Expressway, Suite 1000Dallas, Texas 75206
Attn: Mr. Ryan MortensenP: (972) 235-3031E:rmortensen@pkce.com
Re: Recommendation Letter for Geotechnical Engineering ServicesProposed Creek StabilizationHunterwood ParkCoppell, TexasTerracon Project No. 94155189
Dear Mr. Mortensen:
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical study for the referencedproject. This letter presents recommendations for geotechnical services including ourunderstanding of the project, and the proposed work scope.
PROJECT INFORMATION1.0
A creek running through Hunterwood Park in Coppell, Texas is currently undergoing erosion.Erosion has caused the banks to be unstable and have experienced sliding failures. Terraconwas contracted to provide a planned scope of work to investigate the erosion situation andprovide geotechnical recommendations for remediation.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS2.0
Terracon’s representatives have made a site visit on June 25, 2015 to assess the site conditionsand propose the scope of work. In addition, Terracon also conducted a destop study includingreviewing the geology information and available historic soil survey maps in the local area.Summary of the findings are presented in the sections below.
2.1 Creek Bank ConditionsThe conditions of the creek bank were observed during Terracon’s site visit on June 25, 2015.Medium to large trees are present at the edge of the banks. Due to sloughing and sliding
Recommendation Letter for Geotechnical Engineering ServicesProposed Creek Stabilization ■ Coppell, TexasAugust 14, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 94155189
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 2
failures, roots of some trees are exposed on the side walls of the creek bank. Based on ourvisual observation, the depth of water in the creek was about 1 to 2 feet during the time of sitevisit. Based on the provided preliminary survey, the bottom of the creek appears to vary from+482 to +493. The creek is about 20 feet deep.
An aerial photo of the creek is presented on Exhibit 1. Photos taken during the site visit at somecritical locations are presented on Exhibits 2 through 15.
2.2 GeologyReview of surface geology maps indicates the site is situated on the Eagle Ford Formation ofCretaceous age. Residual clays of high plasticity are formed by the Eagle Ford Formation, andcan be encountered above the shale. These soils are noted for their ability to experience largevolume changes with fluctuations in their moisture content.
The Eagle Ford is a dark gray to gray shale with occasional seams and thin layers of limestone.Calcareous concretions, often exceeding 12 inches in diameter, are found throughout the EagleFord Formation, as well as occasional thin layers and nodules of pyrite and chert. The EagleFord shale is expected at a depth of about 60 feet below existing grade at this site. The EagleFord is anticipated to be over 200 feet thick at this site.
The Eagle Ford is not water bearing, but it serves as an aquatard when overlain by more recentalluvial and terrace deposits. Perched groundwater is often present in the alluvial and terracedeposits.
2.3 General Subsurface SoilsBased on the publicly available information by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), the general soil types and their engineer properties in the area are presented onExhibits 16 through 29 in the Appendix.
PRPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES3.0
Our proposed scope of service consists of field exploration and laboratory testing tocharacterize the subsurface conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for designand construction of retaining walls. The following sections provide an overview of the proposedwork scope for each of these aspects of the project.
3.1 Field ExplorationThe proposed field exploration work includes the drilling and sampling of exploratory soilborings. The following boring schedule is planned:
Recommendation Letter for Geotechnical Engineering ServicesProposed Creek Stabilization ■ Coppell, TexasAugust 14, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 94155189
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3
Number of
Borings Boring Depth Type of Rig Planned Location
1 40 feet Truck-mounted rig Northeast of the park
2 20 Portable rig On the banks
2 20 Portable rig Bottom of the creek or any possiblelocations lower than the bank
Procedures3.1.1The borings should be sampled using split spoon sampling devices consistent with ASTMD1586 and thin walled sampling devices consistent with ASTM D1587. Sample intervals shouldbe as necessary to collect the required data for design, but in no case greater than 5 feet oncenter.
The field exploration should also include observations for groundwater. This should occur duringthe exploration program while the borehole is being advanced.
Site Access3.1.2Based on the site visit, we expect that the boring at the northwest side of the park is accessibleto the Truck-Mounted drilling equipment and no site clearing, wet ground conditions, tree orshrub clearing is needed. Due to site access situation inside the park, using a portable rig is theonly option to complete two borings on the banks of the creek and two borings at the bottom ofthe creek or any possible locations lower than the banks along the creek.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples should be tested in laboratory to determine pertinent engineeringcharacteristics. Testing should include visual classification, moisture content, grain sizeanalysis, Atterberg limits, strength testing, and consolidated undrained triaxial tests asappropriate. The laboratory procedures should follow ASTM standards.
3.3 Geotechnical Engineering Analysis and Report
The results of field and laboratory programs should be evaluated by a professional geotechnicalengineer. The engineer should analyze subsurface conditions, perform the engineeringcalculations necessary to evaluate foundation alternatives and develop appropriate geotechnicalengineering design criteria for earth connected phases of the project. Based on our experience,soil nail walls and gabion retaining walls could be applicable to stabilize the bank of the creek.
Soil Nail WallsSoil nail walls consists of installing passive reinforcement in existing ground by installing closelyspaced steel bars or sections (i.e., nails) and placing a front face support. Soil nailing is typically
Recommendation Letter for Geotechnical Engineering ServicesProposed Creek Stabilization ■ Coppell, TexasAugust 14, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 94155189
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4
used to stabilize existing slopes or excavations where top-to-bottom construction isadvantageous compared to other retaining wall system. A typical cross section of a soil nail wallis shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Typical cross-section of a soil nail wall (Modified from FHWA-NHI-14-007)
Gabion WallsGabions are wire mesh, boxlike containers filled with cobble-sized rock that are 4 to 8 inchessize. Gabion retaining wall is formed with gabion baskets and often used in earth retaining,mud-rock flow prevention, slope stabilization, landslide treatment, and soil erosion control.Gabion walls usually are inexpensive and are simple and quick to construct. Because of theircoarse fill, they are very permeable and thus provide excellent drainage. A typical section of agabion wall is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Typical section of a gabion wall (Source: Appendix C: Introduction to Landslide
Stabilization and Mitigation, 2007, Usgs.gov)
APPENDIX
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 1. Aerial Photo of the Creek
Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
ML AERIAL PHOTO OF THE CREEK EXHIBIT94155189ML
1JRN/A
WEST BETHEL ROAD
HEARTHSTONE LANE
MI
T
C
H
E
L
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
AN
D
E
R
S
O
N
DILLARD LANE
ME
L
I
N
D
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 2. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML2
&
3
Exhibit 3. Photo taken during Site Visit
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 4. Photo taken during Site Visit
Exhibit 5. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML4
&
5
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 6. Photo taken during Site Visit
Exhibit 7. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML6
&
7
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
94155189ML 8
&
9
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Exhibit 8. Photo taken during Site Visit Exhibit 9. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 10. Photo taken during Site Visit
Exhibit 11. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML10
&
11
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 12. Photo taken during Site Visit Exhibit 13. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML12
&
13
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
Project Mgr: Project No.
Prepared by:
Checked by: Scale:
Approved by: Date:8901 CARPENTER FRWY.DALLAS, TX 75247
PH: (214) 630-1010 Fax. (214) 630-7070
Exhibit 14. Photo taken during Site Visit
Exhibit 15. Photo taken during Site Visit
ML PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE SITE EXHIBIT94155189ML14
&
15
JR N/A Consulting Engineers and Scientists CREEK STABILIZATIONTexas Registration 3272
JR 7/31/2015 Hunterwood ParkCoppell, Texas
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
36
4
7
9
0
0
36
4
8
0
0
0
36
4
8
1
0
0
36
4
8
2
0
0
36
4
8
3
0
0
36
4
8
4
0
0
36
4
7
9
0
0
36
4
8
0
0
0
36
4
8
1
0
0
36
4
8
2
0
0
36
4
8
3
0
0
36
4
8
4
0
0
686200 686300 686400 686500 686600 686700 686800 686900 687000 687100
686200 686300 686400 686500 686600 686700 686800 686900 687000 687100
32° 57' 31'' N
97
°
0
'
2
9
'
'
W
32° 57' 31'' N
96
°
5
9
'
5
3
'
'
W
32° 57' 11'' N
97
°
0
'
2
9
'
'
W
32° 57' 11'' N
96
°
5
9
'
5
3
'
'
W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 14N WGS84
0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,330 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Exhibit 16
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Dallas County, Texas
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 29, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 13, 2010—Jan 6,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9 Exhibit 17
Dallas County, Texas
11—Axtell fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2shg6
Elevation: 200 to 790 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 33 to 47 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 65 to 67 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Axtell and similar soils: 87 percent
Minor components: 13 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Axtell
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear, convex
Parent material: Clayey alluvium of pleistocene age derived from mudstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
Btss - 10 to 18 inches: clay
Btk1 - 18 to 46 inches: clay
Btk2 - 46 to 80 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Claypan Savannah 28-40" PZ (R087AY221TX)
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Exhibit 18
Minor Components
Mabank
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 28-40" PZ (R086AY200TX)
Rader
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, concave, linear
Ecological site: Sandy Loam 28-40" PZ (R087AY237TX)
12—Axtell fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2shgd
Elevation: 160 to 790 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 47 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 65 to 67 degrees F
Frost-free period: 240 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Axtell, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Axtell, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear, convex
Parent material: Clayey alluvium of pleistocene age derived from mudstone
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 4 to 25 inches: clay
Btkss - 25 to 55 inches: clay
BCk - 55 to 80 inches: sandy clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Exhibit 19
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Claypan Savannah 28-40" PZ (R087AY221TX)
Minor Components
Silawa, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, riser
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Ecological site: Sandy Loam 28-40" PZ (R087AY237TX)
Rader, moderately eroded
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear, concave
Across-slope shape: Convex, concave, linear
Ecological site: Sandy Loam 28-40" PZ (R087AY237TX)
18—Burleson clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2ssg6
Elevation: 300 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 32 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 270 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Burleson and similar soils: 90 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Exhibit 20
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Burleson
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Circular gilgai, circular gilgai
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous clayey alluvium of pleistocene age derived from mixed
sources
Typical profile
A - 0 to 23 inches: clay
Bss - 23 to 38 inches: clay
Bkss - 38 to 69 inches: clay
2Ck - 69 to 90 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 2.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Blackland 28-40" PZ (R086AY196TX)
Minor Components
Wilson
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 32-40" PZ (R086BY214TX)
Branyon
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Microfeatures of landform position: Circular gilgai
Down-slope shape: Linear
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 Exhibit 21
Across-slope shape: Convex
Ecological site: Blackland 28-40" PZ (R086AY196TX)
20—Crockett fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: d7ls
Elevation: 200 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 32 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 64 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 230 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Crockett and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Crockett
Setting
Landform: Ridges
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from shale of tertiary age
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 7 to 11 inches: clay
H3 - 11 to 37 inches: clay
H4 - 37 to 53 inches: clay
H5 - 53 to 80 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: About 53 inches to densic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 30 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 2 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Exhibit 22
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 28-40" PZ (R086AY200TX)
51—Mabank fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: d7mw
Elevation: 230 to 680 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 32 to 40 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 64 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 280 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Mabank and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Mabank
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Clayey alluvium of quaternary age derived from mixed sources
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 5 to 12 inches: clay loam
H3 - 12 to 80 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 22 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0
mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 8.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 Exhibit 23
Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 28-40" PZ (R086AY200TX)
61—Silawa fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: d7n7
Elevation: 350 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 30 to 42 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Silawa and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Silawa
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 6 to 26 inches: sandy clay loam
H3 - 26 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
H4 - 43 to 80 inches: loamy fine sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: SANDY LOAM 32-40" PZ (R084CY194TX)
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Exhibit 24
79—Wilson clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: d7nv
Elevation: 250 to 700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 32 to 45 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 64 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 220 to 270 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Wilson and similar soils: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wilson
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Clayey alluvium of quaternary age derived from mixed sources
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 4 inches: clay loam
H2 - 4 to 42 inches: clay
H3 - 42 to 64 inches: clay
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 20 percent
Gypsum, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0
mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 10.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 28-40" PZ (R086AY200TX)
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 Exhibit 25
Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk '*' denotes the representative texture; other possible
textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the
National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?
content=17757.wba).
Engineering Properties–Dallas County, Texas
Map unit symbol and
soil name
Pct. of
map
unit
Hydrolo
gic
group
Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number—Liquid
limit
Plasticit
y index
Unified AASHTO >10
inches
3-10
inches
4 10 40 200
In Pct Pct Pct
11—Axtell fine sandy
loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
Axtell 87 D 0-10 Fine sandy loam CL-ML,
SC-SM,
SM, ML
A-2-4, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1
00
80-90-1
00
75-88-1
00
28-52-
75
16-24
-31
NP-4 -7
10-18 Clay, clay loam CL, CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
85-93-1
00
70-84-
98
41-53
-65
25-34-4
2
18-46 Clay, clay loam CL, CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
85-93-1
00
70-84-
98
41-53
-65
25-34-4
2
46-80 Clay, sandy clay
loam, clay loam
CH, CL A-6, A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
75-88-1
00
50-73-
95
35-49
-63
20-33-4
5
12—Axtell fine sandy
loam, 2 to 5 percent
slopes, moderately
eroded
Axtell, moderately
eroded
90 D 0-4 Fine sandy loam CL-ML,
SC-SM,
SM, ML
A-2-4, A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1
00
80-90-1
00
75-88-1
00
28-52-
75
16-24
-31
NP-4 -7
4-25 Clay loam, clay CL, CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
85-93-1
00
70-84-
98
41-53
-65
25-34-4
2
25-55 Clay loam, clay CL, CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
85-93-1
00
70-84-
98
41-53
-65
25-34-4
2
55-80 Sandy clay loam, clay
loam, clay
CL, CH A-6, A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
75-88-1
00
50-73-
95
35-49
-63
20-33-4
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
24 Exhibit 26
Engineering Properties–Dallas County, Texas
Map unit symbol and
soil name
Pct. of
map
unit
Hydrolo
gic
group
Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number—Liquid
limit
Plasticit
y index
Unified AASHTO >10
inches
3-10
inches
4 10 40 200
In Pct Pct Pct
18—Burleson clay, 0 to
1 percent slopes
Burleson 90 D 0-23 Clay CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 90-95-1
00
90-95-1
00
90-95-
99
67-82-
97
56-66
-75
33-41-4
9
23-38 Clay, silty clay CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 1 90-95-1
00
90-95-1
00
90-95-
99
80-90-
99
51-63
-75
34-44-5
4
38-69 Clay, silty clay, clay
loam
CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 90-95-1
00
80-90-1
00
75-87-
99
67-83-
98
51-63
-75
34-44-5
4
69-90 Clay loam, silty clay
loam, clay, silty
clay
CH A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 90-95-1
00
80-90-1
00
75-87-
99
67-83-
98
51-63
-75
34-44-5
4
20—Crockett fine
sandy loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
Crockett 100 D 0-7 Fine sandy loam CL, ML,
SC, SM
A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 98-99-1
00
94-97-1
00
89-95-1
00
40-68-
96
15-25
-35
3-9 -15
7-11 Clay, clay loam,
sandy clay
CH, CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 89-95-1
00
75-88-1
00
75-88-1
00
60-79-
98
35-47
-59
23-33-4
2
11-37 Clay, clay loam,
sandy clay
CH, CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 89-95-1
00
75-88-1
00
75-88-1
00
65-82-
98
35-47
-59
23-33-4
2
37-53 Clay loam, sandy
clay loam, clay
CH, CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 3- 5 90-95-1
00
85-93-1
00
75-88-1
00
50-70-
90
30-45
-60
15-28-4
0
53-80 Clay loam CH, CL A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 3- 5 90-95-1
00
90-95-1
00
90-95-1
00
70-85-
99
45-58
-71
27-40-5
2
Custom Soil Resource Report
25 Exhibit 27
Engineering Properties–Dallas County, Texas
Map unit symbol and
soil name
Pct. of
map
unit
Hydrolo
gic
group
Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number—Liquid
limit
Plasticit
y index
Unified AASHTO >10
inches
3-10
inches
4 10 40 200
In Pct Pct Pct
51—Mabank fine sandy
loam, 0 to 1 percent
slopes
Mabank 100 D 0-5 Fine sandy loam CL, CL-
ML, SC,
SC-SM
A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
80-89-
98
40-55-
70
19-26
-32
4-10-15
5-12 Clay, clay loam CH, CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
60-73-
85
38-47
-55
22-30-3
7
12-80 Clay, clay loam CH, CL A-6, A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
60-73-
85
38-47
-55
22-30-3
7
61—Silawa fine sandy
loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes
Silawa 100 B 0-6 Fine sandy loam CL-ML,
ML, SC-
SM, SM
A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
95-98-1
00
70-85-1
00
40-50-
60
16-21
-26
NP-4 -7
6-26 Sandy clay loam, fine
sandy loam, clay
loam
CL, SC A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 85-93-1
00
85-93-1
00
80-90-1
00
35-50-
65
25-33
-40
8-13-18
26-43 Fine sandy loam,
gravelly fine sandy
loam, sandy clay
loam
CL, CL-
ML, SC,
SC-SM
A-2-4, A-4,
A-6
0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 70-85-1
00
70-85-1
00
38-69-1
00
18-39-
60
21-28
-34
4-9 -14
43-80 Loamy fine sand,
gravelly loamy fine
sand, fine sandy
loam
GM, SC-
SM, SM,
SP-SM
A-1-b,
A-2-4,
A-4
0- 0- 0 0- 1- 2 51-76-1
00
51-76-1
00
38-69-1
00
12-26-
40
16-21
-26
NP-4 -7
Custom Soil Resource Report
26 Exhibit 28
Engineering Properties–Dallas County, Texas
Map unit symbol and
soil name
Pct. of
map
unit
Hydrolo
gic
group
Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number—Liquid
limit
Plasticit
y index
Unified AASHTO >10
inches
3-10
inches
4 10 40 200
In Pct Pct Pct
79—Wilson clay loam,
1 to 3 percent slopes
Wilson 100 D 0-4 Clay loam CL A-6, A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
85-93-1
00
80-90-1
00
60-78-
96
38-44
-49
20-25-3
0
4-42 Silty clay, clay, clay
loam
CH, CL A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 90-95-1
00
80-90-1
00
80-90-1
00
65-81-
96
43-50
-56
26-32-3
7
42-64 Silty clay, clay, silty
clay loam
CH, CL A-6, A-7-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1
00
90-95-1
00
85-93-1
00
70-83-
96
38-52
-65
24-36-4
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
27 Exhibit 29