Loading...
ST9905-CS030819 (2)From: To: Date: Subject: "Rudi Reinecke" <rreinecke@iesolutionsinc.com> "Suzan Taylor" <staylor@ci.coppell.tx.us> 8/19/03 7:41 AM FW: Bethel Road Channel Improvements Photos This e-mail is a follow-up of our onsite meeting on 18 August. I have done a little research on my end on whether the old improvements to this drainage feature were to an existing natural channel. I found some early 1980 photos and studied the Dallas County Soil Survey aerial photos (1975) and this channel appears to have been natural with some channelization in the early 1980s (i.e., jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act). As for permitting, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows FILLs within the jurisdictional area under various permit types. There is a Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program, which is for specific categories of projects that have "minor" impacts. Then there is an Individual Permit process for larger-scale projects. Unfortunately there is not a NWP for channelization of streams (which result in fills -- concrete bottoms), because it is the USACE's opinion that this activity does not have minor impacts. There is a NWP for bank stabilization, but it is limited to stabilizing the banks and only 500 linear feet (there are other limitations). This leaves this project in the Individual Permit (IP) process. Much like all Section 404 permits the process must demonstrate Avoidance, Minimization, and then Compensation mitigation (in that order). A project must show avoidance and minimization of impacts (if possible) before approval. The IP process includes not only approval from the USACE, but other agencies that it has MOU/MOA (i.e., SHPO, TCEQ, EPA, TPWD, and USFWS). Most of these agencies (i.e., USACE, TPWD, USFWS, and TCEQ) will agree that this project would result in total impact (with a concrete bottom) and have not approved these activities except under unique circumstances. From my past experience with dealing with these projects, I am recommending that you re-design the channel improvements so that there will be no FILL within the jurisdictional area (approximately 6 feet wide), thereby avoiding any USACE Section 404 permit process. The reason I suggest this is for three reasons: 1. Permitting cost-I generally charge between $10K to $30K (depending upon complexity) for the IP permitting process, 2. Time-The process will most likely take 6 months to get to the point where the USACE will require you to reevaluate the avoidance and minimization process before approval (basically what I am suggesting from the beginning), and 3. Mitigation cost-If you do get this approved, you must develop and implement a mitigation plan that compensates for all impacts (i.e., 1500 linear feet of stream). If you have land to mitigate a stream channel, this would be relatively inexpensive. If not, you would go to the Trinity River Mitigation Bank to purchase stream credits. Stream credits for a Iow quality stream the multiplier is 0.004 for each linear foot of stream impact (i.e., 1500'0.004 is 6 credits). Roughly each credit is valued at $25K. Therefore, IF the USACE approves your permit application and mitigation, you should be expecting to pay $150K for mitigation on top of your construction cost. The above is a summary of a significant process that I have more than 8 years of experience with the Fort Worth USACE Regulatory District. My opinions are based on past experience trying to receive permits for similar projects, which resulted in what I am suggesting. If you question any of the above, feel free to pass this e-mail to the USACE for verification. Hope this helps. I am not trying to hinder your process, just save you time and money. Rudi Reinecke Wetland Biologist Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc. 3100 Independence Pkwy; STE 311 - #320 Piano, TX 75075 214/455-6022 (mobile) 972/562-7672 (office) 972/562-7673 (facsimile) RReinecke@lESolutionslnc.com ..... Original Message ..... From: Rudi Reinecke [mailto:rreinecke@iesolutionsinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:45 PM To: 'ccbond@transystems.com' Subject: RE: Bethel Road Channel Improvements Photos Craig, It doesn't appear that I have that good of news - there is enough evidence that this was a natural feature in the landscape (i.e., not a man-made storm drain), thus would be considered jurisdictional under the USACE regulation of the Clean Water Act. Although the USGS topo map shows the blue line channel beginning at the north side of Bethel Road, the contours show a swale that could be viewed as a channel along the current alignment of the creek. The USACE has a permitting program for FILLS within the jurisdictional waters. If the fills are minor and are defined under specific USACE categories, they may be authorized under the Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program. If the project does not fit under one of these specific categories or has impacts larger than the allowable threshold of the NWP Program, the activity must apply for an Individual Permit. The problem I see is that this project is a "channelization" of a stream, which is not under any of the approved activities of the NWP program (i.e., there is no NWP that allows only this activity, specifically). The problem with the Individual Permit process is that it is long and it becomes public (not only are you dealing with the USACE, but it is open to all adjacent land owners, USFWS, EPA, TCEQ, TPWD, and SHP©). Generally, there has to be a good defined need for channelizafion projects, or they are not approved. There may be a way around this, though. It looks as though you have been designing along the channel already. The USACE only has jurisdiction on fill, so if the activity avoids filling in any of the existing channel (regulated portion), you can avoid the whole process. I do not know if this is a possibility, but we should evaluate it critically before spending a lot of time and money with a permitting and mitigating process. In summary, this is your determination (no fee), based on my past professional experience the USACE will call this drainage channel a jurisdictional water of the United States. The next step would be for me to provide you an estimate/proposal to delineate the actual jurisdictional boundaries in the field (to see if you can avoid filling this area). Then, if you cannot avoid filling these areas work on other strategies to minimize impacts and permitting. I think I have given a lot of information for you to digest (and probably in too generic terms). Would you like to meet to discuss further? I am out doing a delineation on DFW Airport this whole week, but would be able to meet early Monday (8:30am) or Tuesday next week. Rudi Reinecke Wetland Biologist Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc. 3100 Independence Pkwy; STE 311 - #320 Piano, TX 75075 214/455-6022 (mobile) 972/562-7672 (office) 972/562-7673 (facsimile) RReinecke@lESolutionslnc.com ..... Original Message ..... From: ccbond@transystems.com [mailto:ccbond@transystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:41 PM To: rreinecke@iesolutionsinc.com Subject: Bethel Road Channel Improvements Photos Rudy, Attached are the photos of the channel we propose to improve as part of the Bethel Road project. The photos include a station and direction. I faxed you a USGS map and a site plan (with various stations) that you can use with the photos. Look forward to hearing what you think about the need for a C©E permit. Please call myself or Garry Kraus with any quesfions/comments. Thanks. Suzan Tay or - FW: Bethe Road Channe mprovements Photos Craig Bond TranSystems 972-280-9300 <<21+00 east. JPG>> <<23+00 east. JPG>> <<23+00 west. JPG>> <<25+00 east. JPG>> <<25+00 west. JPG>> <<25+75 east. JPG>> <<27+00 east. JPG>> <<27+00 west.JPG>> <<28+00 east. JPG>> <<28+00 west. JPG>> <<28+25 east. JPG>> <<28+25 SE.JPG>> <<28+25 south.JPG>> <<29+00 NE.JPG>> <<29+50 NE.JPG>> <<30+50 NW.JPG>> <<30+65 SW.JPG>> <<33+40 North.JPG>> <<33+40 South.JPG>> <<34+00 East. JPG>> <<34+00 West. JPG>> <<34+50 East. JPG>> <<34+50 West. JPG>> <<35+50 east. JPG>> <<35+50 west. JPG>> <<35+75 NW.JPG>> <<36+25 NW.JPG>> <<36+25 West. JPG>> <<36+40 F:ast.JPG>> CC: <ccbond@transystems.com>