ST9905DR-CS040114_Suzan_T_ay_lor- Re: St?@~n~G1 __
From:
To;
Date:
Subject:
"Loretta Mokry" <loretta@apaienv.com>
<staylor@ci.coppell.tx.us>
111412004 10:02:26 AM
Re: Stream G1
Page 1 1
03 oi
Suzan,
See my responses to your questions below.
Loretta
Loretta E. Mokry
Senior Environmental Scientist
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
1607 Todd Trail
College Station, Texas 77845
(979) 694-7619 home office
(817) 845-3280 cell
(979) 694-7619 fax (call first)
Through Arlington office
(817) 461-1491
(817) 860-3339 FAX
<loretta@apaienv.com>
www.apaienv.oom
>>> "Suzan Taylor" <staylor@ci.coppell.tx.us> 01/14/04 09:29AM >>>
Loretta:
In our meeting we discussed the individual permit for Stream G1 related
to the construction of Bethel I. The portion of the creek to be
constructed extended from Freeport Parkway northward to Coppell Road.
We will also be constructing a portion of the channel with the
construction of Bethel Road II. This portion of the channel consists of
the box culverts under Coppell Road and approximately 200 - 300 feet
downstream. Each section of Bethel Road is being designed by a
different engineer and has a different construction start date.
However, the improvements to the channel were identified in one
hydraulic study done as part of Bethel I.
I have the following questions:
1 .Can both projects be included in one individual permit?
Since the two projects are related and the impacts are to the same stream channel with impacts
essentially contiguous, and I assume that the projects will either be conducted concurrently (overlapping
timelines) or in immediate sequence, they really should be reviewed for one individual permit. If they are
to be separated, the USACE would need some documentation as to the justification for separating them
(i.e., separate financing, etc.).
If the projects are not to be conducted with overlapping timelines or in immediate sequence and
substantial time lag (>2 years) will occur between them, then possibly it would be better to address them
with two separate permits.
2. Do you think Bethel II could be authorized under a NWP for linear
transportation?
We really did not identify the limits of the channel in the agreement-
only 1600 linear feet. I am sure that the 1600 feet goes to the west
Suzan Taylor ~ Re: St'ream G1 Page 2
face of Coppell Road.
Potentially, the construction of the box culverts under Coppell Road and just downstream could be
authorized under NWP 14 (Linear Transportation Projects), but if the impacts are greater than 1/10th acre
it would need to be submitted as a pre-construction notification to the USACE and therefore, would involve
another review period. I would recommend that this project be included with the review for Bethel I so that
only one review has to be conducted. I think this would result in an overall time and cost savings for the
City.
Let me know and I will discuss with Ken - we may need to make some
changes to the agreement.
We can alter the agreement to read "from Freeport Parkway through approximately 300 linear feet
downstream of Coppell Road" instead of "1600 linear feet." If we do it as one permit, the budget I have
presented should still work. Since only one application and mitigation plan would be developed, the
additional impacted area would be included in our overall discussions and figures. We would need to
receive information re: the designs from both design engineers, but I had anticipated that the information
would be routed to us through you, so additional effort to consolidate the information from both projects
could be handled by you. If you need us to work directly with the engineers and consolidate the
information ourselves, I made need to adjust the budget somewhat. Let me know what would work best
for you.
Suz~n