DR9604-SY 960909September 11, 1996
Planning Division
Mr. Ken Griff'm
Assistant City Manager
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Mr. Griff'm:
I have enclosed a copy of the draft Project Study Plan (PSP) for Denton Creek (the
proposed environmental restoration, streamba~k erosion, and recreation project).
After you and your staff have reviewed the draft PSP, please call so that we can discuss any
concerns or issues. If you would like a follow on meeting to discuss the project or PSP, I am
available.
Thank you for your cooperation and enthusiasm for this project. If you have questions
and/or need other information, please call me at (817) 978-2187.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Rice, Jr., ~.E.
Technical Manager
l
Il
U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District
Project Study Plan
Denton Creek Watershed
in
Coppell, Texas
City of Coppell, Texas
Version: 9 SePtember 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Plan Formulation
1.1 Study Area Description
2.0 Detailed Scope of Study by Discipline
2.1 Hydrologic/Hydrologic Studies
2.2 Civil Design Studies
2.3 Geotectmical Studies
2.4 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Waste Investigations
2.5 Surveys
2.6 Environmental Studies
2.7 Cultural Resources
2.8 Economic Studies
2.9 Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Studies
2.10 Real Estate Studies
2.11 Recreation Studies
2.12 Study Management
2.13 Programs and Project Management
2.14 Engineering Management
3.0 Report Preparation
4.0 Public Involvement
5.0 Supervision and Administration
6.0 Review Contingency
7.0 Schedule of Fiscal Year Funding
7.1 Funding by Subaccount
7.2 Work Diagram Entitled, "Denton Creek Project Study Plan"
7.3 Work Breakdown Structure
Page
1
1
2
2
3
5
6
8
8
10
11
12
12
14
15
16
t6
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
22
g.O
9.0
9.1
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
21.1
21.2
21.3
21.4
21.5
21.6
22.0
23.0
23.1
23.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Organizational Breakdown Structure
Schedules
Project Milestones
Resource Allocation Plan
Local Cooperation Plan
Acquisition Plan
Real Estate Plan
Total Quality Plan
Value Engineering Plan
Safety Plan
Security Plan
Cultural Resource Plan
Environmental Plan
Operation and Maintenance Plan
Management Control Plan
General
Study Team Meetings
Study Management Team
Financial Accounting
Performance Evaluation
Technical Review Team
Reporting Requirements
Change Control Plan
Schedule
Costs
Page
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
111
1.0 PLAN FORMiJLATION.
a. General Criteria. Alternative plans, either alone or in combination, shall be
investigated in order to develop a plan which reasonably maximizes net national economic
development benefits. This plan shall be identified as the National Economic Development (NED)
plan. The NED plan shall be formulated in consideration of four criteria: completeness,
effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. Completeness is the extent to which a given
alternative plan provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the
realization of intended design. Effectiveness is the extent to which an alternative plan solves the
specific problems and achieves the specified opportunities. Efficiency is the extent to which an
alternative plan is the most cost effective means of solving the flooding and drainage problem,
realizing opportunities consistent with protecting the nation's environment. Acceptability is the
extent to which an alternative plan is approved by State, local, and public agencies for
compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies.
The Sponsor will assist the Government in plan formulation as the ultimate operator of the
project and the agent representing the affected public. Each altemative plan shall include
justifiable measures to mitigate effects on fish and wildlife resources. It is anticipated that three
alternative plans (preliminary detail) will be developed for the project area, such that a selected
plan (NED and/or locally preferred) can be identified and carried to full detail analysis.
b. Specific Criteria. Environmental restoration efforts include analyses for restoration
of forested wetland areas, preservation/improvement of existing wetl~tnds and creation of wetland
areas. Reforestation of previously cleared areas with hard mast producing trees and native
shrubs would improve the areas by lending some habitat diversity and increasing the food source.
Existing wetlands would be preserved and improved through development of vegetated benches
and the addition/use of levees and water control structures. New wetlands would be developed
through the use of vegetated benches and the addition/use of levees and water control structures.
Recreation specifics include feasibility level analysis for hike/bike trails along Denton
Creek, access to the recreation facilities (including roads and parking facilities); pedestrian
bridges, recreational facilities for picnicking, unstructured open-space activities, vegetation and
supporting structural amenities. Potential connections to existing park and recreation lands and
facilities within and near the study area will be considered.
1.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION. For the purpose of this study, environmental
restoration projects within Coppell will be located within an area starting west of Denton Tap
Road, proceeding eastward along Denton Creek for approximately 3 miles and the area between
the natural Denton Creek channel and the Elm Fork of the Trinity River down to the Sandy Lake
Bridge. The linear area (along the modified Denton Creek) would have an approximate width of
500 feet through the majority of the study area. Downstream of a channelized (permitted) reach
of the creek, the study area would investigate environmental restoration, on each side of the
natural creek, by-pass channels, and undeveloped floodplain. Immediately south of Denton Creek
are existing city recreation facilities. Portions of these facilities could be used for restoration
along Denton Creek.
2.0 DETAILED SCOPE OF STUDY BY DISCIPLINE
2.1 HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC STUDIES.
a. Hydrologic Engineering. This work is to be performed by the Government. The
investigations on Denton Creek will center around the development of relationships between the
magnitude and duration of flows, for a wide frequency range. Such analyses will be performed
for both the existing and the potential with-project conditions.
The presently anticipated alternatives would provide for an enhanced diversion of Denton
Creek flows through its left overbank area (in the common floodplain of the Elm Fork of the
Trinity River). En route, the diverted flow would be made to pass through an enhanced wetland
area. Spills from the wetland area would then be directed to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
Such alternatives are intended to provide for environmental restoration along the severely eroded
and sloughed channel of Denton Creek (up through River Mile 4) and the creation of a sustainable
wetland (served by diversions from Denton Creek). In addition, enhancement of recreational
opportunities would be investigated for the Denton Creek and Elm Fork corridors, as an added
increment.
In order to evaluate the streambank erosion problem, it will be necessary to determine the
primary causes of this damage over the past several years and then project future losses, assuming
no action is taken. From a hydrologic engineering standpoint, this will require the frequency
analysis of both severe-event (peak flood flow) and long-duration (low flow) scenarios. These
analyses are complicated by the fact that the severe-event flows along Denton Creek can be
produced by localized rainfall downstream from Grapevine Dam, by releases (controlled or
uncontrolled) from Lake Grapevine, or by a combination of the two. Long-duration flows along
Denton Creek are controlled by gate releases at Grapevine Dam.
A combination of frequency analyses on Lake Grapevine (May 1957 to present) and on
Denton Creek at State Highway 121 (May 1957 to June 1991) will be used to develop the severe-
event peak discharge versus frequency relationship on Denton Creek. A similar relationship for
events produced by localized rainfall downstream from Grapevine Dam will be based on synthetic
runoff.modeling. Specific results will be provided for the 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-
year frequency events. Low flow duration analyses at these gage sites will be used to develop the
long duration versus discharge versus frequency relationship.
With-project condition evaluations are expected to involve the redistribution of the
existing condition Denton Creek flows through the diversion path and the wetland area. Analysis
of a variety of diversion structure styles, sizes, and heights is anticipated.
b. Hydraulic Engineerine. This work is to be performed by the Government. The
investigations on Denton Creek will involve the development of anticipated water surface profiles
for a wide range of discharges and the preliminary design of a diversion structure and drainage
path for delivering diverted flows to the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Analysis of a variety of
diversion structure styles, sizes, and heights is anticipated.
2
Pm "HEC-2" backwater model for the lower reach of Denton Creek (up through River
Mile 4) will be developed, based on the detailed topographic mapping made available as part of
the ongoing Upper Trinity Feasibility Study. The presently available backwater model (prepared
by a local engineering firm) was started a considerable distance upstream from the mouth of
Denton Creek, near the point where the 100-year frequency backwater from the Elm Fork of the
Trinity River begins to be dominated by that from Denton Creek. As such, it would be of very
limited use in this particular study.
Hydraulic designs for the with-project alternative(s) will be in accordance with
Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1601, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, dated 1
July 1970 and Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1504, Hydraulic Design for Local Flood
Protection Projects, dated 30 September 1982, and other applicable engineering regulations.
Details of the proposed plan will be presented to the Civil/Structural Section for use in the
development of design plates.
c. General Criteria. Results of the hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analyses will be
summarized as part of an Engineering Appendix to the Feasibility Report. It will present the basic
data used in the analysis, explain the analysis procedures, and document the analysis results.
All applicable Corps of Engineers regulations, analysis procedures, and policy guidance
will be followed during this study. Coordination with the local sponsor, which will be essential to
insure a quality, usable product, will be maintained throughout the study.
2.2 CIVIL DESIGN STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. Civil design studies required for the Feasibility Report will consist
of an Engineering Appendix, preparation of design plates, a written description of the selected
plan, and a cost estimate of the improvements. Ail components of each project shall be
accomplished in a professional manner using accepted engineering practices and CADD
standards, as well as compliance with Corps of Engineers' regulations applicable to a civil works
project.
The design appendix shall consist of all design data analyses, a writeup of the design
features for the improved areas, information plates, and cost estimates pertaining to civil and
relocation design of the selected plan. Final design of all flood protection structures and
alignments shall be the obligation of the Government. Conceptual design input to enhance the
function of these structures or for use in the locally preferred plan (LPP), can be provided by the
Sponsor. These items will be incorporated into the final design by the Government. All design
plates (drawings) provided shall be original tracings and shall be prepared by such methods and
quality of workmanship to permit satisfactory clear and legible reproduction, including
reproduction at one-half scale. Likewise, adequate engineering scales to properly present the
design data development, including detailed features, shall be used on all drawings to be included
as design plates. All drawings are to be prepared on Corps of Engineers standard size sheet 22" x
40" (trim to trim), including the standard title block.
Cost estimates for this project will be prepared based on quantity take-offs for all design
items included in the selected plan in this scope of work. Such estimate shall be in accordance
with the engineering manual, EM 1110-2-1301, Cost Estimate - Planning and Design Stages. The
estimate will be in the work breakdown structure format prepared using the M-CACES software.
b. Specific Criteria. All channel design and agronomy criteria used shall be in
accordance with the following Engineering Manuals (EM): EM 1110-2-38 (Environmental
Quality in Design of Civil Works Projects), and EM 1110-2-1601 (Hydraulic Design of Flood
Control Channels).
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS - The design plates for the selected plan in the
Feasibility Report shall consist of a project location and vicinity map, plan and profile sheets of
the flood control improvements and a recreation trail system, plan and section views of the
drainage structures, typical cross sections, and miscellaneous details. All plates shall include the
horizontal alignment data in plan view, vertical control information in a profile view, and all
construction dimensions and legends. Limits for right-of-way access, construction of the project,
and all turfing areas, shall also be indicated on the design plates.
The written description required for the Feasibility Report shall include a plan description
of the design features, and the impact to existing bridges and utilities. Methods for establishment
of tuff' along levees, non paved channel slopes, and the environment including turfing of disturbed
areas, shall be included in this writeup. Recommendation for waste disposal sites of excess
excavation and construction debris will also be included. Final quantity takeoff will incorporate
all conceptual design items in a final format and shown in a cost table form.
SPONSOR OBLIGATIONS - The Sponsor can provide Conceptual Design
aspects for the LPP and recreational locations as well as proposed equipment and methods to be
used for operation and maintenance of the project by the sponsor. This design shall be provided
to the Government in a DGN, DWG, or DXF format. All horizontal alignment and vertical
control criteria, shall comply with that used by the Government. Existing interior drainage
structures and bridges that are not designated to be relocated will require protection from new
work. The sponsor can provide conceptual design methods of protection.
Relocations.
GOVERNN[ENT OBLIGATIONS. - Utilities that are to be relocated, including
improvements to bridges, shall be identified in accordance with the following criteria letter:
SWFED-DH, 10 August 1973 - Relocation Criteria for Improved Channel Projects. All utilities
to be relocated and necessary bridge improvements shall be shown in their existing locations on
the civil design plates. Each item shall be noted with relocation limits and an applicable design
solution. The written description required for the Feasibility Report shall include all affected
public utility lines which include sanitary sewer and water lines, and bridge improvements. The
reasons for the above work required shall be stated in this written report.
4
SPONSOR OBLIGATIONS. - The Sponsor shall provide identification of future
transportation and utility improvements in the project area, which are being studied or proposed.
The information shall include transportation improvements which are sponsored by The City of
Coppell, Texas Department of Transportation, and Dallas County. The information shall als0
include utility improvements sponsored by the City of Coppell and other improvements known to
the City of Coppell.
The Sponsor shall provide available as-builts of bridges, water, sanitary sewer, storm
sewers; available bridge foundation information, and available bridge surveys. Utility design
criteria may be provided when appropriate.
d. Plan Formulation. Study alternatives will be formulated to reduce the number of
bridge relocations to a minimum. A single concept plan which satisfies the project requirements
will be developed initially with a minimum of detail. As the study progresses, mor detail will be
developed in accordance with the initial concept. A more detailed design (which includes
alignments, cross-sections, and configurations) and plan and profiles will be developed for
presentation in the report. The final cost estimate will be in the Code of Accounts format. A
re-analysis of the developed plan and profile will be perfon~ed. A project description and detailed
estimate of cost (M-CACES) will be developed for the presented plan.
2.3 GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. Feasibility level geotechnical engineering design and geological
investigations and analyses will be performed in support of the project alternatives as outlined in
Section 1.1, herein. An investigation will be performed and the resulting analysis and design
recommendations will be documented in a geotechnical appendix to be attached to the subject
report.
Preliminary investigations will be conducted in the beginning of the study to facilitate
development of alternative plans. These investigations will include site reconnaissance and
research of available information such as Natural Resource Conservation Commission
publications, geological publications, and foundation reports for any existing bridges, buildings, or
other structures. The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to identify factors which could
possibly reduce the scope of the required field investigations. The information obtained in the
preliminary investigation will be utilized in the design of the boring/surveying program to be
performed in the detailed phase of the geotechnical study. Any existing drilling and testing
information will be used as applicable for analysis and design of project alternatives.
Additional field investigations (drilling and testing and/or surveying) may be required to
assess the feasibility of the proposed project alternatives. Borings will be of sufficient depth to
adequately characterize the foundation conditions for preliminary design. Laboratory tests (visual
classification, Atterberg limits, and strength) will be performed on selected samples. The purpose
of the field investigation program will be to characterize the foundation conditions of the sites.
Information obtained from the field investigation program will be used in the development of the
design of the project features.
5
Sufficient engineering analysis will be performed to provide support for evaluation of the
design and construction of the project. Geological features which affect the project design,
construction, or operation will be evaluated and documented. Design parameters will be
developed for use in design of the project features. Analyses of areal and site geology will be
made. Results of investigations and analyses will be documented within the geotechnical
appendix.
b. Geotechnical Appendix. Investigations and analyses performed will be documented
in a formal geotechnical appendix as part of the Feasibility Study document. The appendix will
contain the following information: (1) a brief description of the project, (2) references to
applicable publications, site visits, and foundation reports, (3) a description of areal and site
geological conditions, (4) a description of all investigations and testing conducted (testing
methods will be referenced), (5) a description of the project site including relevant surthce
features and subsurface conditions, (6) a description of groundwater conditions as obtained from
the aforementioned sources, (7) geotechnical recommendations regarding borrow and/or disposal
areas as needed, (8) geotechnical engineering design recommendations for design of the project
features, (9) designs will be provided fOr proposed embankments and/or channels (all such
analyses performed will be documented in the text), and (10) plates as necessary to support the
investigations, analyses, and design recommendations contained within the report.
2.4 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOLOGICAL WASTE (IITRW)
INVESTIGATIONS.
a. General Criteria. The project area and vicinity is to be investigated for determining
the presence of HTRW materials. When completed, the Initial Assessment should satisfy HTRW
data requirements for a reconnaissance-level planning study as outlined in ER 1165-2-132. As
appropriate, Government investigations, analyses, and documentation will generally be conducted
as follows:
(1) Site Reconnaissance. The project site and the general vicinity will be
investigated for the presence or suspected presence of HTRW materials. The investigation will be
limited to surface reconnaissance; i.e., drilling and/or lab testing will not be required. The site
reconnaissance will be documented with appropriate maps, photographs, and text.
(2) Municipal Records Review. Review of information and records applicable to
the site of the Recommended Plan including contacting the local fire department, environmental
health department, electric company, and water department will be performed. The purpose of
this review is to determine if violation of municipal codes have occurred on-site.
(3) State Records Review. Review Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission data bases for underground storage tank facilities, leaking underground storage tank
facilities, and landfill closures which may be present within a one-half mile radius from the site.
(4) Federal Records Review. A review of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System,
6
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Emergency Notification System listings. The
purpose of this review will be to identify the present use of HTRW materials being stored,
generated, or transported in the area, or any State liens related to violations of the above acts. In
addition to past use, disposal, treatment, storage, emissions, or hazardous materials in the area
will be reviewed. This information will be reviewed and summarized up to a one-half mile radius
from the referenced site location.
(5) Review of Historical Land Use. A limited historical study of the site will be
performed. Records of original tracts, if available, will be reviewed as well as other available
maps. A review of past aerial photographs as pertains to land usage will be performed.
(6) Review of Relevant Geological Information. Evaluation and review of
available geological and hydrological information (United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and United States Geological Service) will be
performed.
(7) Documentation. All findings will be detailed in a formal report including
recommendations for further action, if required. Lists of source materials and copies of relevant
reports which have been reviewed will be attached. List of agencies visited and personnel
interviewed for this investigation will be provided.
b. Site Investigations (SI). The primary objective of the SI is to determine the
presence and character of contamination identified in the Initial Assessment, estimate the volume
and level of contamination and to a limited extent, assess possible remedial action alternatives
with respect to the available data. When completed the SI should satisfy HTRW data
requirements for a feasibility-level planning study as outlined in ER 1165-2-132. The SI will
include the following tasks:
(1) Investigations. Sampling of surface soil, sediments and surface water will be
performed. If necessary, subsurface drilling and soil/groundwater HTRW sampling operations
will be performed using a truckmounted rotary drill, acceSsory equipment and necessary materials.
Sampling locations will be selected based on the Initial Assessment conducted at the site.
Conduct QA/QC sampling and analysis to assure proper sampling and laboratory procedures.
(2) Testing. Submit samples to laboratory for analytical testing of priority
pollutants. Sampling and testing will be done in accordance with ER 1110-1-263.
(3) Prepare a Site Investigation Report. This report will summarize the sampling
and testing efforts; identify the location, extent and severity of contamination; and provide
recommendations on avoiding or remediating the contamination, as appropriate.
7
2.5 SURVEYS. The Sponsor shall provide all necessary topographic survey information for
the study area. The topographic data shall be submitted to the Government in DXF format for
use in developing the alternatives as outlined previously and development of the Economics data.
The Sponsor shall provide all horizontal and vertical coordinates of existing control points that
will be needed for soil boring locations consistent with the engineering scale base maps.
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. An environmental inventory of the proposed project area, an
assessment of the without-project future, and an assessment of the impacts of the structural and
nonstructural measures for the urban and rural flood control shall be made a part of the Feasibility
Report. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and appendices will be
prepared in compliance with the requirements of ER 1105-2-100, "Planning Reports," and ER
200-2-2. The report shall be based on all studies and investigations conducted and from published
reports applicable to the study area. The main report shall be direct, concise, and written in an
easy-to-understand style using ample graphics, illustrations, and photographs. The main report
shall also include the study findings and recommendations.
Office and field work necessary to inventory, describe and evaluate environmental
elements in the area of project influence shall be accomplished, and an assessment of the beneficial
and adverse environmental impacts of each alternative considered in detail shall be prepared. This
assessment will be quantitative whenever possible. The assessment shall discuss project
alternatives and impacts of project alternatives including impacts on water quality, vegetation,
wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and other significant considerations.
A literature and data gathering search shall be performed and necessary field studies
conducted to acquire information on the following environmental parameters for inclusion in the
NEPA document.
1. A general description or statement of the existing air quality and noise level
conditions in the immediate project area shall be prepared. Any significant problems associated
with existing air' quality or noise level sources in the project area shall be provided.
2. The existing water and sediment quality shall be described for the project area
and downstream areas which may be affected by the project based on all available data and
previous research. Available data and results of analysis shall be interpreted and a discussion
prepared on principle sources of municipal, agricultural, or industrial pollution in the project area
to be affected. The discussion shall include the results of any previous analyses of the physical,
chemical and biological parameters, including nutrients, metals, and pesticides and the source
and concentrations of each. If specific data is unavailable, water quality will be discussed in
general terms based on stream and watershed conditions.
3. The existing conditions of biological resources of the project area shall be
described for use in the environmental assessment. The biological elements to be addressed shall
8
consist of the following: vegetational habitat, vegetation of significance, fish and wildlife
resources, habitat of significance.
a) Major habitat types (e.g. brushlands, rangelands, woodlands, wetlands,
etc.) within the project area shall be included. Cover or habitat types shall be listed for future
analysis. A generalized discussion of habitat types shall be provided and a discussion of the
important habitats shall be incorporated.
b) Based on aerial photography, literature search, field verifications, or
other means, a discussion of any rare, remnant or unique species, specimens, stands, or
communities; threatened or endangered species; virgin stands; climax communities; vegetation
types unusual to the region; and habitats of important native plants shall be provided. Any floral
resources that should be preserved, enhanced, protected or approached with care shall be
indicated. A listing of plants officially recognized or proposed by the Department of Interior
(DOD, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD),
and Texas Organization of Endangered Species, as threatened and endangered plants reported for
the area shall be provided. Additionally, a detailed discussion shall be made of the relative value
of habitat types identified as feeding, breeding, nesting, nursery areas, cover, resting, and as
sources of nutrients for fish and wildlife.
c) The major mammal, bird, reptile and amphibian species groups which
characterize each habitat type shall be described. This information shall be obtained primarily
from the literature and other available sources and supplemented with onsite field investigations.
Species of commercial and recreational importance shall be described, and their economic value
shall be quantified utilizing TPWD and USFWS data and other available information.
d) Wildlife resources identified that should be preserved, enhanced,
protected, or approached with care shall be discussed. Threatened and endangered species of
actual or potential occurrence in the study area shall be discussed. The Endangered Species Act
of 1973 will be strictly adhered to if any threatened or endangered species, or their habitat, are
found to exist in the project area.
e) Aquatic resources that will be affected by the project shall be described.
Fisheries and vegetational resources of the project area shall be discussed, and proposed measures
for preserving and improving the quality of these areas as aquatic habitat shall be provided. Fish
and macro-invertebrate species shall be discussed and available data from existing literature and
TPWD and USFWS survey reports on fisheries shall be presented.
f) Habitat evaluation procedures or other methodologies shall be
performed in cooperation with the USFWS as appropriate, to conduct an environmental analysis
for restoration plans to determine which measures would be supported by an incremental analysis.
The monetary and non monetary benefits and costs of the measures shall be determined.
2.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a. General Criteria. The legal responsibilities of any Federal undertaking requires
Cultural Resources work conducted for any study or project in partial fulfillment of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers obligation under numerous Public Laws. Some of the Public Laws that
apply to the projects described herein, include: Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292~ 16
U.S.C. 461-467; Stat. 666 et seq.), the Archeological Recovery Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-523~ Stat.
2201; 16 U.S.C. 469) as amended 1974, to the Archeological And Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-291), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (P~ L. 89-665; 16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.; 80 Stat. 915 et seq.), amended by P.L. 91-243, P.L. 93-54, P.L 94-442, P L
94-458, P.L. 96-224, P.L. 96-515, P.L. 98-483, P.L. 99-514, P.L. 100-123, and P.L. 102-575;
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), amended by P.L. 94-52, P.L. 94-83, P.L. 99-160, P.L.100-202, P.L. 100-404, P.L. 101-
144, and P.L. 102-389; Executive Order No. 11593, 1971, Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment, the Archeological Resources Protection act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95; 16
U.S.C. 470 aa-mm; 93 Stat. 721 et seq), amended by P.L. 100-555 and P.L. 100-588; Executive
Order No. 12372, 1982, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. The guidelines for
these undertakings are provided in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 36 CFR Part 800:
Protection Of Historic Properties, Section 106 process. All the ramifications of the undertaking
require attention under the above laws including: borrow areas, other excavation areas
(channels), disposal areas, roads, pipelines, any other utility easements (telephone or cable lines,
etc.), subsurface testing for other Federally required activities, any wildlife mitigation areas
resulting from environmental mitigation, demolition and building (levee right-of-ways, ROW).
b. Specific Criteria. All Cultural Resources work shall be completed as much as
possible before the project begins in order to facilitate timely testing and/or mitigation prior to the
project. For large excavation projects, all work is contracted and the background work can be
accomplished prior to the undertaking and other work can be accomplished in concert with
project implementation. For safety purposes large subsurface trenches or openings in the Denton
Creek floodplain are unstable and must be stepped according to code regulations which is very
costly. Another less costly approach involves Contractor subsurface monitoring and trenching
during project implementation. The Sponsor's participation will be limited to compilation of
existing data within the study area and determination of the cultural enhancement aspects of the
locally preferred plan.
The Cultural Resources cost analysis is based on updating literature searches fi.om State
records at Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), City of Coppell and Dallas County
records, historical land use records and deeds, historic cartographic and geographic records, and
informants. Literature research shall also include the Corps of Engineers (COE), Fort Worth
District records of levee activities, any or all, paleoenvironmental and geological literature
germane to the project including Trinity River Authority (TRak), city of Coppell, and COE
subsurface core borings. The cartographic, paleogeographic, and geological literature combined
with subsurface boring data shall be used to produce a subsurface model for in-field interpretation
during subsurface survey work.
10
After the subsurface survey model is generated from the previous literature search a
pedestrian survey of the project's designed channelized and levee area alignment is required
documenting the existing above surface conditions along the channelized and levee corridors in
conjunction with mechanical subsurface surveying in areas likely to yield significant information
useful for assessing the project's impact. Project disposal, borrow, and Federally obtained
environmental mitigation areas, to be determined as the project develops, shall also require
surface survey of above ground features as well as subsurface mechanical surveying in designated
wetland restoration areas and other borrow areas. This also may include documentation of any
planned or designed bridge alterations. During the subsurface mechanical survey various tests
shall be run for clastic characterization to determine origination of the alluvial deposits to detect
potential paleosols.
The subsurface survey model and subsequent subsurface mechanical survey can only
accommodate less than 0.010 percent of the area impacted by the project. An on site monitoring
program by a COE qualified Cultural Resources Contractor shall be needed during excavations.
It would be most advantageous for project planning to establish project excavation contingency
plans in the event an historic property is discovered and will require further work. These cost
reflect inventory, assessment, supporting document preparation and monitoring. Site testing and
mitigation cost are not considered in this cost analysis in this scope of work. Site testing and
possibly mitigation funds are required only for historic properties that meet the criteria for listing
the property as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Expensive mitigation costs can be eluded in many instances through historic property avoidance.
However, when historic properties require mitigation it is often highly rewarding and beneficial to
projects to recycle the information obtained from mitigation back into the overall project site
design through parks, recreation design and interpretive programs.
2.8 ECONOMIC STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. Studies included under this category include analyses of
costs/benefits associated with proposed recreation improvement and an analysis of the sponsors
ability to pay in accordance with Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100. The recreation benefit
analysis will include empirically determined demand, socio-economic and recreation resource
characteristics. The analysis will also account for substitution and evaluation of the willingness to
pay based on one the following methods. 1)Travel Cost 2) Contingent Value or 3) Unit Day
Value. Applicable constraints shall be in accordance with ER 1105-2-100.
b. Specific Criteria. A narrative economic report will be included as an appendix in the
Feasibility Report. This report will display the study findings in an objective, logical manner. All
line items addressed will be supported by the methodology, documentation, and display of the
proper analysis tools utilized. A financial analysis in support of the construction recommendation
will be presented and shall include a statement of financial capability, a financial capability
assessment, and a financing plan. The Government will prepare and include in the main body of
the Feasibility Report, the District Commander's assessment of the Sponsor's ability to meet the
non-Federal financial responsibilities of project cost sharing as specified in Engineering Regulation
1105-2-100.
11
2.9 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) STUDIES.
This work will be performed by the Government. The GIS efforts include support of
Environmental Resource Studies undertaken by the Government. Support of the Environmental
Resource studies will include use of digital GIS satellite imagery/ianduse/landcover datalayers to
report existing and proposed effects on resource base of structural and nonstructural flood
mitigation alternatives. Work to be completed is as follows:
A. GIS Support of Environmental Resources Studies
(1) GIS Database of Satellite imagery and imagery-based landuse-landcover will be
queried to provide tabular summary reports of environmental resources under existing conditions
(Phase 1).
(2) Largescale maps delineating project area will be produced, as necessary, to guide field
investigations undertaken by USACE and USFWS in the study area. The maps will be generated
from existing maplayers including satellite imagery based landuse-landcover and the Trinity River
Corridor engineering scale digital basemaps of 2-foot contours, buildings, and roads (Phase 2).
(3) A narrative report will be included documenting methods employed to support Environmental
Resources Study efforts. Tabular reports of landuse-landcover resource acreages effected under
existing and improved conditions will be included in final report (Phase 3).
The NCTCOG's participation will be limited to providing base maps and graphics through
GIS modeling. Large-scale maps delineating project area will be produced, as necessary, to guide
field investigations undertaken by the Sponsor, USACE, and/or USFWS in the study area. The
maps will be generated from mapping developed by the Sponsor as a part of this study.
2.10 REAL ESTATE STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. The Government will prepare a gross appraisal of the project site
with appropriate review and approval. A Real Estate Supplement (RES) will also be prepared by
the Government and appended to the Feasibility Report, which will describe the minimum real
estate requirements for the proposed project, including estates, costs, and schedules. A significant
amount of the data required for these reports will be provided by the Sponsor, especially those
Rems with an asterisk (*). The work to be accomplished is detailed as follows.
Maps of the project area will be obtained with sufficient detail to identify the types of
lands and improvements that will be impacted by the proposed project.* County tax office
ownership and valuation data will be collected on affected properties.* A detailed inspection of
the proposed project area will be performed. The Sponsor's land acquisition experience and
ability to acquire the necessary real estate interests in accordance with Title III of Public Law 91-
646, including capability to condemn will be assessed.* The Sponsor's experience and ability
with benefits under Title II of Public Law 91-646 will be assessed.* Availability of replacement
housing will be assessed.* Information will be gathered on present or anticipated mineral activity
in the vicinity of the project which may affect the operation thereof.* All rights-of-entry permits
for all activities that require entry to private property will be obtained.
12
A Real Estate map will be produced. The types of estates to be acquired and acreages in
each will be determined. The total number of ownerships and the types of properties within the
project area will be identified.* All rights-of-entry permits/permissions for all activities that
require entry to private property will be obtained.
b. Gross Appraisals. The Gross Appraisal will include maps of the city with sufficient
detail to identify the types of lands and improvements that will be impacted by the proposed
project. Local real estate markets will be researched to gather data about recent land sales and
offers for sale of improved and unimproved properties comparable to the right-of-way required
for alternative plans. This market information will be the basis for values of the various types of
properties within the proposed project.
A detailed inspection of the proposed project area will be performed noting which of the
improvements are business related, which are residences, and the number and value within the
project limits. Those improvements lying adjacent to the project limits that may be impacted by
the project and the unimproved properties that may be damaged by the project will be determined.
Severance damages may be caused by loss of access, distortion of tracts, or unecomonical
remnants, and will be estimated as a lump sum. The total number of ownerships within the
project area will be verified based on detailed project plans used in conjunction with the latest
ownership maps available.*
After all field work is completed, a written report will be prepared giving a general
description of the project area, a summary of the highest and best use of the land involved, a
summary of all sales and offer data with a location map, a detailed breakdown of the values for
the land and improvements, severance damages, and appropriate contingencies.
c. Real Estate Supplement (RES). A RES will be prepared and will contain the
project name, and general description of the area and total acreage to be acquired. The total
acreage will be broken down as to ownership status and the various type of easements required
and the reasons therefore. If any Federally owned land is within the area, the RES will indicate
the Federal estate, degree of interest required for project purposes, and views of local
representative of the controlling agency as to use for project purposes. If any City owned land is
within the area, the RES should indicate the City's estate and degree of interest required for
project purposes.
The RES will indicate the number and cost of Public Law 91-646 relocations including the
number of persons, farms, and businesses to be displaced and information regarding the
availability of replacement housing. A Baseline Cost Estimate for Real Estate and an assessment
of the City's land acquisition experience and ability to acquire* will be included in the RES. Also
included will be a detailed schedule of all real estate acquisition activities or milestones for the
City and the Corps of Engineers.*
A map will be part of the RES that shows the project area including minimum estates,
property lines, utilities and facilities to be relocated, and any known or potential Hazardous and
Toxic Waste (HTRW) lands.* Also included will be a statement on the present or anticipated
mineral activity in the vicinity of the project which may affect the operation thereof and a
13
recommendation regarding the acquisition of the minerals, if any.* The RES will address any
proposed non-standard estates, the attitude of the landowners toward the project(s)*, and any
other relevant real estate information appropriate for the project.*
2.11 RECREATION STUDIES.
a. General Criteria. This work item includes tasks necessary to evaluate the impact of
multi-objective alternatives on recreation and related activities in the study area and to investigate
opportunities for enhancement of recreation opportunities associated with the recommended
project.
The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (PL 89-72) requires that full
consideration be given to the opportunities that Federal multipurpose projects afford for outdoor
recreation and associated fish and wildlife enhancement. The Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 directs that recreation will be considered as an equal project purpose along with
environmental enhancement and flood control on Federal projects. Tasks performed under this
work item are governed by the following federal guidelines: ER 1105-2-20, ER 200-2-2, ER
1165-2-400, EC 1165-2-140, and ER 1140-2-3.
This work will be performed by the Federal government in coordination with the Local
Sponsor. Various recreation alternatives will be investigated, including a full range of recreational
facilities development options, open space planning, and regional trail system strategies. The
recommended recreational development plan will be described in the write-up and illustrated on
appropriate maps. The scope of work for these activities is as follows:
a. Inventory of Existing Public and Private Recreational Areas. Document
existing recreational resources which are located within a 25 miles radius ofihe project area.
b. Identify. Existing and Potential Recreational Needs. Describe existing regional
recreational use patterns and demand for various types of recreation using the 1995 Texas
Outdoor Recreation Plan.
c. Identify Project Constraints and Opportunities. Identify potential conflicts
between recreational resources and proposed multi- purpose project alternatives. Recommend
ways in which various alternatives can be coordinated to accommodate or enhance water and land
based recreational opportunities with facilities associated with the project. Identify opportunities
for recreational development associated with the recommended project.
d. Identify Cost Sharing, for Recreational Projects. Present options for
recreational facilities development and discuss cost sharing options with the Local Sponsor.
Assess Sponsor interest in recreational cost sharing as part ofproject implementation.
14
b. Visual Resources. As a requirement of NEPA, the existing visual and aesthetic
resources will be identified within the study area, and impacts of proposed project alternatives on
resources aesthetic resources will be evaluated. Tasks performed under this work are governed
by ER 1105-2-100. The scope of work for these activities includes the following:
1. Identification of Significant Visual Resources. Identify significant visual
resources and other planning issues related to aesthetics that may impact plan formulation, design
and engineering, and potential recreational opportunities. Investigate significant resources within
the study area. Identify significant public perceptions related to local and regional aesthetics and
formulate strategies for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts.
2. Identify_ Appropriate Mitigation. Identify appropriate measures to mitigate for
unavoidable adverse effects on sigru'ficant aesthetic resources. Evaluate potential mitigation
measures, features, and actions according to their ability to compensate for adverse effects, or to
mitigate damage to aesthetic resources associated with various project alternatives.
c. Report Preparation. Text and supporting graphics will be prepared to describe
recreational needs, potential impacts to recreational activities and facilities and proposed
recreational facilities which may be cost-shared as part of the recommended project. Narrative,
graphics, and photos will be provided to identify and describe existing visual and aesthetic
resources within the study area and to evaluate potential impacts and mitigative solutions.
2.12 STUDY MANAGEMENT. Overall management will insure that the study accomplishes
the goals established, proceeds at the anticipated rate, and all items in the scope of work are
followed. Study management to be performed by the Government will include scheduling and
organizing of all studies; regular periodic meetings with technical elements to review progress;
preparing budget documentation and monitoring and managing all funds being spent; preparation
of project related correspondence; coordinating with all Federal, State, and local agencies to
insure that all have been informed of the proposed plans of improvement, as well as the progress
of the study. The Government will conduct study management team meetings and participate in
Project Committee Meetings (as defined in Modification 2 of the Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement). The Government will provide guidance and support as required to insure that all
questions have been answered and all problems have been solved from the start of the study to the
review and approval of the final report by the Chief of Engineers.
Study management to be performed by the Sponsors will include management of required
sponsor studies; regular periodic meetings with technical elements (both Fort Worth District and
contractors) to review progress; monitoring and managing funds being spent; preparation of
project related correspondence; coordinating with Federal, State, and local agencies to insure that
all parties have been informed of the proposed plans of improvement, as well as the progress of
the study. Regular monthly meetings will be held with participation of study management
(Government and Sponsors) and technical specialists working on study items. Progress and
problems will be discussed to facilitate actions by management to allocate resources, coordinate
issues, or seek additi~onal advice or expertise so as to maintain study progress and to address all
relevant issues.
15
Project related correspondence will be prepared by the Government and the Sponsors.
This shall include responses to all public, government, special interest groups, Congressional, or
other inquiries directly or indirectly relating to study activities, the study area, or the draft
feasibility report. Coordination with other agencies will require on-site visits and correspondence
with Federal, State, and local government agencies, institutions, businesses, or groups with
expertise, responsibilities, or resources related to flood control, environmental resources, or other
areas of interest in this study. The Sponsors will review the draft feasibility report, EA/EIS, and
provide comments to the Government.
2.13 PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT. The Project Manager (PM) and
Sponsors will attend meetings and keep up-to-date on progress and issues. The PM will be
responsible for quarterly financial status reports, fact sheets, monthly project executive summaries
(submitted to Sponsors and Corps' higher authority) and budgetary efforts, with assistance from
the Program Management team member.
Study budgeting and accounting will require monitoring of study expenditures by the
Government. Budget documentation will consist of the project cost estimates, benefit estimates,
and study cost estimates and related project information sheets needed to support annual budget
requests. Study budgeting and accounting will also require preparation of annual budget
documentation to be updated periodically during the study in support of budget reviews and to
reflect changing interest rates or cost estimates. Monitoring and managing of study funds will
require preparation of monthly obligations and expenditures schedules and monthly fund
obligation projections; regular continuing review of progress relative to expenditures; monthly
review and reconciliation of CEFMS Finance and Accounting System status reports with actual
and planned charges against the study; coordination of progress on funds obligations and
expenditures with reviewing headquarters; and negotiations, transfer of funds, and monitoring
expenditures for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies. At the end of the study year, an
accounting of the funds expended in each study activity will be prepared'and submitted to the
Study Management Team for review.
The PM will develop the Project Management Plan to be submitted to the Southwestern
Division (SVvT)) along with the draft feasibility report. Development of the draft Project
Cooperation Agreement (PCA) will be accomplished with Pre-construction Engineering and
Design (PED) funds and submitted with the Design Memorandum (DM) report (if no DM, then
during early stages of Plans and Specifications).
2.14 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT General Engineering will act as the project
manager for Engineering Division (ED). As such, it will monitor the execution of ED work and
expenditure of funds in accordance with the Project Study Plan, herein. General Engineering will
maintain that all work performed is within the specified scopes and that any deviation is
coordinated with PPMD and the Sponsors for appropriate action.
16
General Engineering is responsible for the technical adequacy for the Feasibility
Engineering Appendix. As such, General Engineering will coordinate reviews in compliance with
ER 415-1-11, and with the District's Design Quality Management Plan (DQMP). Finally, General
Engineering will be the primary point of contact for ED, concerning any issues originating outside
ED. General Engineering will attempt to resolve any concerns as quickly as possible with minimal
impact to the study team.
3.0 REPORT PREPARATION.
a. General Criteria. The Feasibility Report will consist of the main report,
Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact (or an Environmental Impact
Statement, ifwarranted),UiS. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report, Archeological
Assessment, Public Notice, exhibits, and appendixes, and will be prepared in compliance with the
requirements of ER 1105-2-100, "Guidance For Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies." The
report will be a complete decision making document and as such will include a complete
presentation of plan formulation. Once the draf~ report has been prepared it will be forwarded to
higher Corps authority for review prior to the required feasibility review conference (FRC). Upon
completion of the FRC the report will be revised as necessary and released for public review and
comment. The public review period is typically 30 days in length. After the public review period
is completed, the report will be revised as necessary, and the final report will be signed by the
District Engineer and forwarded to Southwestern Division and HQUSACE for concurrent review.
Upon receipt, the Division will issue the Division Engineer's public notice. After approval
of the report by HQUSACE, the Chief of Engineers will forward the report to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The ASA(CW) will coordinate the report findings with
the Office of Management and Budget. The ultimate goal is Congressional authorization of the
recommended plan for construction. The report will be based on all studies and investigations
conducted and from published reports applicable to the study area. The main report shall be
direct, concise, and written in an easy to understand style using ample graphics, illustrations, and
photographs. The main report will also include the study findings and recommendations.
b. Specific Criteria. All report originals will be prepared on 8.5" x 11" plain white
bond paper one side only. Plates will be 11" high and folded to conform with 8.5" width of the
main document. The length and detail of the NEPA document to be included in the report will
conform to the regulations contained in ER 200-2-2, "Procedures for the Implementation of
NEPA," dated 4 March 1988. The report's appendices will be technical reports written for
technical reviewers. The length and detail of the appendices will be sufficient to cover all aspects
of the subject. Graphics and other illustrations will be used 'to facilitate the presentation. As a
minimum, appendixes for the following subjects will be included; Economics, Real Estate,
Environmental Resources, Cultural Resources, and the USFWS Coordination Act Report. In
addition, an Engineering Appendix (prepared in accordance with EC 1110-2-268, Engineering
and Design for Civil Works Projects, 1 July 1991), will be part of the report and will consist of
the following subjects; Hydrology, Hydraulics, Civil Design, Cost Estimating, Geotechnical Data,
and Hazardous Toxic and Radiological Waste.
17
4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. The Government and the Sponsors shall arrange, conduct,
monitor, and evaluate each workshop/public meeting for the purpose of incorporating public input
into this feasibility phase study. The "public" shall include any affected or interested non-Corps of
Engineers entities. This includes other Federal, regional, State, and local government entity and
officials; public and private organizations; and individuals.
The Sponsors shall be responsible for providing the meeting facility, visual aids, and
developing/distributing public notices for all public meetings and workshops. The Government
shall assist the Sponsor in the development of the appropriate mailing list and distribute public
notices for the public meeting. The Sponsor shall provide pertinent information for the mailing
list. The Government shall be responsible for making the public meeting presentation, while the
Sponsor shall conduct the public meeting. The Sponsor will lead in the presentation and conduct
of the public workshops.
The public involvement during the study shall consist of approximately one (1) public
meeting and two (2) public workshops for the study area. The public meeting will be conducted
after the publication of the draft report, to inform the public of the findings and solicit comments
from the public. The first public workshops will closely follow the initiation of plan formulation
studies. The second public workshop will be held after the initial findings, and used to solicit
comments, and build support for potential report recommendations.
Public involvement will also include the Sponsor's efforts with the Denton Creek
Committee. This committee will facilitate the continuous public involvement process during the
course of the study. The Government will be expected to attend some of these meetings. The
Government and the Sponsors will also be expected to handle media interests (TV, radio,
newspapers) during the remainder of this study.
5.0 SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION. This work is to be performed by the
Government and the Sponsors during all phases of the study. The work will include all tasks
performed by the Project Committee during the course of the study and all coordination efforts by
the study managers and their supervisors with higher authorities and the usual local and
government chains of command. All tasks completed in this effort, including phone
conversations, preparation of letters, maintaining documentation, etc., will be accomplished under
this cost item.
During the study period, supervisors will attend the monthly meetings to review and
follow the study progress and problems. Supervisors will attend the work conferences with the
Sponsors. Additionally, four monthly team meetings will be specifically identified for attendance
of the Chiefs of Planning, Engineering, and Real Estate. Generally, these meetings will be ( 1 )
Study Initiation, (2) Selection of Alternatives, (3) Plan Formulation, and (4) Draft Report Review.
The Sponsors are expected to fully participate in these meetings. In addition, a Planning Division
Chief's review, along with a "internal peer" review will be conducted prior to submittal of the
draft report to the Southwestern Division.
18
6.0 REVIEW CONTINGENCY. The Feasibility Report is submitted concurrently to t
Division and HQUSACE. Comments may be received from either office, which must be
addressed by the Fort Worth District. The amount of work required from the Government m
the Sponsor during review is determined by the number and nature of the review comments and
cannot be predetermined; therefore, this work item is considered a contingency.
7.0 SCHEDULE OF FISCAL YEAR FUNDING. The study period is scheduled to start in
Government fiscal year (FY) 1997 and finish in FY 1998. The amount of funds required in
Government FY 1997 and FY 1998 by the Government and the Sponsors are estimated as
follows:
FY97 FY98
Government $230,000 $50,000
Sponsors 230,000 50,000
(Cash Contribution - Coppell)
(In-Kind Services - NCTCOG)
(In-Kind Services - Coppell)
(205,000)(25,000)
(10,000) (10,o0o)
05,000) (15,000)
Total
$460,000 $100,000
19
7.1 FUNDING BY SUBACCOUNT. The estimated total study cost has been broken down into
various subaccounts, as defined in EC 1110-2-538, Civil Works Project Cost Estimating - Code of
Accounts. The costs are also broken down by Federal Costs and Non-Federal Work-in-Kind
Services, as shown in the following table.
STUDY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
H&H Studies
Civil/Structural Design
Cost Estimates
Geotechnical Studies
HTRW
Surveys
Environmental Studies
USFWS
Cultural Resource
Economic Studies
Recreation
GIS
Real Estate
Study Management
Plan Formulation
Project Management
General Engineering
Report Preparation
Public Involvement
ElS
Review Continency
$50,000
$80,000
$10,000
$55,000
530,000
50
$35 000
$20 000
$15 000
$15 000
$45 000
$15 ooo
$35 000
$35 000
$5 000
$25 000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
$10,000
$0 $0 $0 $50,000
$0 $0 $0 $80,000
$0 $0 $0 $10,000
50 50 $0 555,000
$0 $0 $0 $30,000
$0 $0 $0. $0
50 $0 $0 $35,000
$0 $0 $0 $20,000
$0 $0 $0 $15,ooo
$o $o $o $15,ooo
$o $5,ooo $5,ooo $5o,ooo
$0 $0 $0 $15,000
$0 $5,000 $5,000 $40,000
$15,000 $5,000 $20,000 $55,000
$0 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000
$0 $0 $0 $25,000
$0 $0 $0 $15,000
$0 $0 $0 $10,000
$5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $5,000 $5,000 $15;000
ISubtotal Study Cost
Cash Distribution
Total Study Cost
$201000 $30,000 $50,000 $560,000
(520,000) $250,000
$0 $280,000 $560,000
$510,000
($230,000)
$280,000
20
Denton Creek, Coppell :
1996 I 1997 1998
Task Name Start Finish MarlApr~la~JunI Jul ~Au~S~OctlNovtDecl Jan~=ebJMarlApr~Ma~Junl Jul ~Aug~eplOctlNov~Dec JanlFebJMarlAprlMay~Junl Jut ~Aug
Hydrologic/Hydraulic Studies 12/2/96 10/20/97
H azardous/Toxic Waates 12/16/96 10/20/97
US Fish & Wildlife 12/20/96 10/20/97
Cultural Resources 1/7/97 I0/20/9T
Geographic Information System 12/20/96 10/20/97
: : : :
Recreation Studies 12/31/96 10/20/97
Economic Studies 2/25/97 10/20/97
Alternative Formulation Briefing (1) 5/1/97 5/14/97 ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "
Plan Formulation (Final) 5/15/97 8/8/97 ; ~ ~ : ' ' ' '
Management 12/2/96 5/7/98
Report, EA Preparation (Oraft Interim) 10/21/97 11,10/97
Public Meeting 11/12J97 11/13/97 ~,'
REVIEW PHASE 11/21/97 6/7/98
Policy Review 12/30/97 2/9/98
Finali~,e Interim Feasibili~ Report & EA 4/~0/90 ~[/98
Submit Final Interim Report & EA ,~'//98 ~'/98
7.3 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a representation of the study scope broken
down into a hierarchy of activities. This structure provides a means for organizing the project
activities in a logical sequence and identifying products or deliverables through the various stages
of the study. The chosen structure as shown below is closely related to the account codes and
cost estimates provided in the estimated cost summary. The total Federal and non-Federal dollars
for each major work element is shown for each phase. In addition, each work item under a work
element has the cost and the man days of effort shown in parenthesis (md). The cost shown for
each work element includes labor and miscellaneous expenses.
Work Breakdown Structure by Account
Work Items
A. Hydrologic Studies (P J)
1. Calibrate and verify existing conditions
hydrologic/hydraulic models.
2. Computation of modified conditions
Profiles for various frequencies
3. Field Trips
Provide Civil Design Section with
geometric information and water surface
profiles for plans.
5. Prepare Hydrologic/Hydraulic Appendix
Federal
$50,000
$15,000
(30 md)
$20,000
(40 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
Non-Federal _1/
$0
$0
Civil/Structural Design (NG)
1. Develop quantities
2. Relocations
$80,000
$15,000
(30 md)
$15,000
(30 md)
$0
22
3. Prepare plates for feasible plans.
$5,000
(10 md)
Develop final quantities and relocations
for the selected alternative
5. Prepare design plates for selected plan
Develop Civil Design and
Cost Estimate Appendix
7. Field Trip
8. Respond to Comments
$15,000
(30 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$ ! 0,000
(20 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
Cost Estimating (NC)
1. Cost Estimates for Alternatives
2. Construction Cost Estimate for Selected Plan
$10,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$0
0
Geotechnical Studies (PE)
1. Attend Team meetings/Field Trip
2. Develop input for alternatives
3. Develop Geotechnical Data Appendix
4. Respond to Comments
$30,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$0
23
Hazardous and Toxic Wastes (PG)
1. Records Review
2. Team Meetings/Field Trips
3. Literature Reviews/Search
4. Report Preparation
$30,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$0
F. Surveys (PF)
$0
Environmental Studies (PT)
1. Site Visits
2. Update/Verify Existing Conditions
o
Develop restoration plan with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4. Preparation of NEPA Document
$35,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$20,000
(40 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$0
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) (PT)
1. Site Visits
2. Attend Team Meetings
3. Evaluate all plans
4. Prepare Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report
$20,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,0OO
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$0
24
Cultural Resources Studies (PT)
1. Archeology and Historic Field Survey (Office)
2. Archeology and Historic Field Survey (Field)
Develop Cultural Resources Appendix
and provide additional text for inclusion
into main report.
J. Economic Studies (PU)
1. Analysis of Recreation Alternatives
Analysis of the financial capability of the
potential sponsor to share in the
project's construction, operation and
maintenance costs
3. Prepare Economic Appendix
4. Address Comments
$15,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$15,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$3,000
(6 md)
$4,000
(8 md)
$3,000
(6 md)
$0
$0
K. Recreation (PU)
1. Site Visit
$45,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
Analyze Recreation opportunities
for each feasible alternative
3. Finalize Recreation Plan and Appendix
$30,000
(60 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
Geographical Information System (GIS) (PT)
1. Maping support for alternatives.
$15,000
$15,000
(30 md)
$0
25
M. Real Estate Studies (HA)
1. HTWRecords Search
2. Define individual properties
3. Produce Real Estate map
4. Produce Gross Appraisal
5. Write Real Estate Supplement
$35,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$8,000
(16 md)
$12,000
(24 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
$5,000
(10 md)
Study Management (PR)
1. Meet monthly with
Study Management Team
2. Handle correspondence
3. Negotiate and administer contracts
4. Coordinate with other agencies
5. Coordinate overall study team efforts
$35,000
$5,O0O
(10 md)
$2,000
(4 md)
$2,000
(4 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$21,000
(42 md)
$20,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,00O
00md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
Plan Formulation (PR)
1. Review and analyze alternatives
$5,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
$5,000
(10 md)
26
Project Management (QB)
1. Quarterly status reports, fact sheets, and
budgetary efforts
2. Budget submission.
3. Maintain study budget and accounting
Development of the draft Project
Cooperation Agreement (PCA), and
Coordination with sponsor to develop
understanding.
$20,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$5,000
(10 md)
$0
Q. General Engineering (NI)
1. Site Visit to area
2. Coordination of Engineering Efforts
$15,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$10,000
(20 md)
$0
R. Report Preparation (PR)
1. Prepare Preliminary and Draft Feasibility
Reports with integrated NEPA
documentation
2. Prepare Final Feasibility Report
3. Perform drafting, typing and reproduction
of all reports
$10,000
$5,000
(10 md)
$3,000
(6 md)
$2,000
(4 md)
$o
S. Public Involvemem (PR)
$5,000
$10,000
1. Prepare and host public workshops
$2,000
(4 md)
$4,000
(8 md)
27
Prepare and mail out
announcement of public workshop.
Provide facilities and arrangements
for public workshops.
3. Prepare and host public meetings
$3,000
(6 md)
$2,000
(4 md)
$8,000
(10 md)
T. Environmental Impact Statement (PT)
$0
$0
Review Contingency (PR)
1. Address comments from Corps Offices,
inter-agency, and public review
$10,000
$1o,o00
(20 md)
$5,000
$5,000
(10md)
SUBTOTAL
Non-Federal Cash Contribution
TOTAL ESTIMATED STUDY COST
$510,000
($230,000)
$560,000
1_/All non-Federal costs shown for work items are Negotiated Costs.
$50,000
$230,000
28
8.0 ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
The organizational breakdown structure (OBS) identifies all of the elements which
contribute to the execution of this feasibility study. The Denton Creek, Coppell, Texas, OBS for
the Fort Worth District is presented below. Included are the estimated cost allocations, if any,
applicable to each organization. Only separable costs are shown (i.e. no cumulative costs) Please
note: 0 identifies the office organizational code for cost accounting purposes.
Organization
Allocation
PROGRAMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION (QA)
Civil Project Management Branch (QB)
PLANNING DIVISION (PP)
Planning Management Branch (PR)
Environmental Branch (PT)
Economics Branch (PU)
ENGINEERING DIVISION (NA)
Design Branch (NE)
Civil Engineering Section (NG)
Cost Engineering Branch (NC)
General Engineering (NI)
Hydrology & Hydraulics Section (P J)
Geotechnical Section (PA)
Soils Design and Dam Safety Unit (PE)
Survey Unit (PF)
Hazardous and Toxic Wastes Section (PG)
$25,000
$65,000
$85,000
$60,000
$80,000
$10,000
$15,000
$50,000
$55,000
$0
$30,000
REAL ESTATE DIVISION (HA)
Planning and Control Branch (HT)
$35,000
9.0 SCHEDULES
A detailed study schedule has been developed for the Denton Creek Study and is part of
this PSP. The network analysis was accomplished by using the software package MS Pro. jeer,
Version 4. A critical path network analysis has also been completed for this project, using MS
Project. The project schedule is shown in Figure 1.
29
9.1 PROJECT MILESTONES
A list of major project milestones for the project were developed and were used as a basis
for the schedule of the project. These major project milestones are listed below.
Milestone
Completion Date
Initiate Feasibility Study .............................. 1 December 1996
Alternative Formulation Briefing ............................ 1 May 1997
Submit Draft Feasibility Report ....................... 30 December 1997
Feasibility Review Conference ............................ 3 March 1998
District Engineer Submits Final Feasibility Report ...............7 May 1998
Division Engineers Notice ................................ 10 May 1998
10.0 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN
The Network Analysis shown in Figure 1 was developed with the assumptions that were
provided by each work element, sponsor and Corps, for tasks identified as being on the critical
path, no float exists. All efforts will be made to obtain priority status for tasks located on the
critical path.
11.0 LOCAL COOPERATION PLAN
The responsibilities of the sponsor throughout the Feasibility Phase of this study are
clearly defined in the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement. Additionally, individual line items in
the form of in-kind services for which the sponsor is responsible are contained in Section 2 of this
PSP.
12.0 ACQUISmON PLAN
All work tasks required for completion of this study will be performed by the Fort Worth
District and the sponsor. Consequently, no Acquisition Plan is required.
13.0 REAL ESTATE PLAN
Although no acquisition of real property is required during the feasibility phase of this
study, the District's Real Estate Division will be responsible for obtaining all access rights which
are required to fully conduct the study. It is likely that access rights will be required to gather
survey data within the city of Coppell. Exact requirements will be determined during the initial
phases of the study.
30
14.0 TOTAL QUALITY PLAN
Quality Control is generally associated with contract-related activities, and are intended as
a means to assure compliance with the Corp's standards. However, for feasibility level studies,
the Fort Worth District has integrated a Quality Management Plan into its existing monthly study
team concept. This is in addition to the reviews normally reserved for higher levels (Feasibility
Review Conference, Headquarters Policy Compliance Review, etc.) near the end of the study
period.
Four monthly team meetings will be specifically identified for Quality Review Activities.
The Chiefs of Planning, Engineering, and Real Estate, along with the major Branch Chiefs (such
as Chief of Design, Hydrology and Hydraulics, etc.) will be requested to participate. Generally,
these meetings will be (1) Study Initiation, (2) Selection of Alternatives, (3) Plan Formulation and
(4) Drat~ Report Review. The sponsor is encouraged to fully participate in these meetings.
In addition, a Planning Branch Chiefs review, along with an internal technical review will
be conducted prior to submittal of the draft report to the Southwestern Division.
15.0 VALUE ENGINEERING PLAN
This section not applicable.
16.0 SAFETY PLAN
This section not applicable.
17.0 SECURITY PLAN
This section not applicable.
18.0 CULTURAL RESOURCE PLAN
The Sponsor and/or a contractor, in conjunction with oversite by Fort Worth District, will
perform a Cultural Resource Assessment of the area contained within the recommended plan
during the study.
19.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
The Fort Worth District, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will
perform an Environmental Assessment of the recommended plan during the study.
20.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
This section not applicable.
31
21.0 MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN
21.1 GENERAL. The Fort Worth District has adopted a Study Team concept in 1985 to
aid in the overall management and control of this type of study. The Study Team is chaired by the
Planning Manager, who is responsible for the overall direction, progress, accounting, and
performance evaluation.
21.2 STUDY TEAM MEETINGS. Government and Sponsor representatives will
comprise the Study Management Team. During the study period, monthly meetings will be held
of the study management team to review and discuss the study progress and problems and allot
resources, coordinate issues, or seek additional advice or expertise so as to maintain study
progress and to address all relevant issues. Work conferences will be held at the Corps of
Engineers Fort Worth District office or at the office of the Sponsor as the need arises. A written
record of all conferences, meetings, discussions, verbal decisions, telephone conversations, etc. on
matters relevant to the work will be made by the Government members of the management team.
These records shall be numbered sequentially and will fully identify persons participating, subjects
discussed, and conclusions reached, if any. The Sponsor shall be provided a copy of this
correspondence.
21.3 STUDY MANAGEMENT TEAM The Project Study Plan Management Team for
the Denton Creek Feasibility Study is composed of the following members from their respective
offices:
Team Member Office Symbol Specialty
Gene T. Rice, Jr .........
Greg Ajemian ...........
Todd House ............
Christy Sorrels ..........
Tim Dalbey ............
Billy Colbert ...........
Bill Cotten .............
Craig Lofiin ............
Janet Hall ..............
Randy Roberts ..........
Jeff.Comer .............
Efren Martinez ..........
Jim Sears ..............
Tom Cloud ............
Ken Griffin .............
Chris Brooks ...........
CESXVF-PL-M ............. Technical Manager
CESWF-PM-C .............. Project Manager
CESWF-ED ............. Engineering Manager
CESWF-PL-E ...................Economics
CESWF-PL-RC ............ Cultural Resources
CESWF-PL-RE ................ Environmental
CESWF-PL-E ...................Recreation
CESWF-ED-DH .......... HydraulicLHydrology
CESWF-ED-GD ................ Geotechnical
CESVqF-RE-P ................... Real Estate
CESWF-ED-DC ................. Relocations
CESWF-ED-DC ................ Civil Design
CESWF-ED-C ............... Cost Engineering
USFWS ...................... Environmental
City of Coppell ............ Asst City Manager
NCTCOG ............. Environmental Division
32
21.4 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING. Study budgeting and accounting will require
preparation of annual budget documentation and monitoring of study expenditures by the
Government. Budget documentation will consist of the project cost estimates, benefit estimates,
and study cost estimates and related project information sheets needed to support budget
requests. Budget documents will be updated periodically during the study in support of budget
reviews and to reflect changing interest rates or cost estimates. Monitoring and managing of
study funds will require preparation of monthly obligations and expenditures schedules and
monthly fund obligation projections; regular continuing review of progress relative to
expenditures; monthly review and reconciliation of Corps of Engineers Financial Management
System (CEFMS) status reports with actual and planned charges against the study; and
coordination of progress on funds obligations and expenditures with reviewing headquarters. At
the end of the study, an accounting of the funds expended in each study activity will be prepared
and submitted to the Study Management Team and Executive Committee for review.
21.5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Progress of the study will be monitored
through the use of progress statements made at the Monthly Team Meetings, informal updates
throughout the study period, and meetings at the end of each phase to access the results of the
work accomplished.. Work progress will be assessed against the available financial accounting
and the current project schedule (Gantt Network) to determine the study's performance
21.6 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM. The Project Study Plan Technical Review Team
for the Denton Creek Feasibility Study is composed of the following members from their
respective offices:
Team Member Office 3?mbol Special(y
Eli Kangas .............
Michael A. Jordan .......
Todd House ............
Mead Sams ............
Marry Hathorn ..........
Elston D. Eckhardt .......
Kathleen Wu ...........
Bob Camp .............
Gary Zimmerer ..........
Dom Wiese ............
CESWF-PL-M ............. Technical Manager
CESWF-PM-C .............. Project Manager
CESWF-ED-DE ......... Engineering Manager
CESWF-PL-E ................... Economics
CESWF-PL-R ................. Environmental
CESWF-ED-H .... Hydrologic / Hydraulic Design
CESWF-ED-E ...................... HTRW
CESWF-RE-P ................... Real Estate
CESWF-ED-DC ................ Civil Design
CESWF-OD .................... Operations
22.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Progress of the study will be reported monthly to the District's Project Review Board
(PRB) using the Project Management techniques, as defined in ER 5-7-1, "Project Management"
and EC 5-1-48, "Implementation of Project Management." The Project Management Reporting
System will be used to produce monthly reports (known as LRS reports) which will be forwarded
to the Corps' Division and Headquarters levels for monitoring purposes. All changes to the
33
projected cost and schedule which impact major milestones of the study must be submitted for
approval With the LRS reports. The Project Manager will have the primary responsibility of the
upward reporting requirements during the feasibility study. In addition, the designated Project
Manager will participate in the conduction of the study such that, if a project were to evolve from
this study, the manager would be sufficiently familiar with the study to take over all associated
project management duties.
23.0 CHANGE CONTROL PLAN
23.1 SCHEDULE. The study schedule shown in Figure 1 will serve as the baseline for
the feasibility study. Any significant deviations from this schedule will require prior approval from
the sponsor, and the Project Review Board at the Corps' District, Division, and Headquarter's
levels. The form known as a Schedule and Cost Change Request will serve as the mechanism to
request all changes. It will be submitted by the Project Manager to the sponsor. Upon the
sponsor's written approval, it will be submitted to the District PRB. If approved, the request will
be forwarded to the Division and Headquarters.
23.2 COSTS. The same format applies to changes in the cost of the study as described in
Section 20.1. Any cost increases over 15% will require the Agreement to be modified as set forth
in Article III of the FCSA. Any remaining funds at the termination of the study shall be disposed
of as provided in Article XII (b) of the FCSA.
34