Loading...
Billingsley-CS060929REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION For A PORTION OF A 15$+ ACRE TRACT On GRAPEVINE CREEK In the City of Irving Dallas County, Texas Prepared for: BILLINGSLEY COMPANY By: Halff Associates 8616 Northwest Plaza Drive Dallas, Texas 75225 AVO 23186 September 2006 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL LETTER Of MAP REVISION AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BILLINGSLEY TRACTS IRVING, TEXAS I. Narrative ;;:HalffAssociates -- ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • SCIENTISTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS September 29, 2006 AVO 23186 FEMA LOMA Depot 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304-6425 Attn.: LOMA Manager 8616 NORTHWEST PLAZA DRIVE DALLAS, TEXAS 75225 (214) 346-6200 FAX (214) 739-0095 Re: Request for a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision on Grapevine Creek for a portion of a 158+-acre tract in the City of Irving, Dallas County, Texas. Dear Sir/Madame: Enclosed you will find a technical report covering site improvements for a portion of a 158+-acre tract near the southwest corner of Belt Line Road and MacArthur Boulevard in the Cities of Coppell, Dallas, and Irving, Dallas County, Texas. Grapevine Creek flows through this site. This report, submitted by Halff Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Billingsley Company, contains the technical data required for issuance of a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision. Hard copies of the required HEC-2 hydraulic models, a disk containing input data files, and floodplain and floodway mapping can be found in Appendices A through P. Application and Certification forms are included in Section II. The pre-project models are based on the CLOMR (FEMA Case No. 04-06-A148R) approved May 25, 2005, prepared by Halff Associates, Inc. for a different portion of the 158+-acre tract. If you have any technical questions on this report, please contact either Brandon Luedke, E.I.T. at 214-217-6648 or me at 214-346-6213. Administrative questions should be directed to Mr. Garry Fennell, P.E., Floodplain Manager for the City of Irving at 972-721-3721. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours very truly, HALFF ASSOCIATES, Walter E. Skipwith, P. Vice President Enclosures cc: Mr Mr Mr °~ONAL EN ~'~ Z Garry Fennell, P.E., Flood lain Manager for the City of Irving Henry Billingsley, Billingsley Company James Pritchard, P.E., Pritchard Associates, Inc. I:\23000s\23186U-I&1-1\CLOMR\West Cell\Report\Letter to Nanauve.doc DALLAS FORT WORTH HOUSTON McALLEN AUSTIN FRISCO SAN ANTONIO FLOWER MOUND TRANSPORTATION WATER RESOURCES LAND DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEYING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING REQUEST FORA CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION BILLINGSLEY TRACT, IRVING, TEXAS A. General This study was undertaken to provide the necessary technical data for issuance of a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision (CLOMR) for a floodplain reclamation project along Grapevine Creek in the City of Irving, Dallas County, Texas. A location map for the site is shown on Figure 1. The required forms for this "Request for a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision" are included in this report. Additional information is provided as Attachments to these forms. Also included in the study are existing and proposed project flood profiles for the 100-year flood based on a fully developed watershed (ultimate conditions). B. Site Description The 158+ acre tract is located on Belt Line Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Moore ~ Road. This tract is in City of Coppell north of Grapevine Creek, City of Dallas along 12f ~ ~ Grapevine Creek and City of Irving south of Grapevine Creek. The site (approximately 30- _ ~ , ~ acres) is a portion of the 158+ acre tract. The site is in the right overbank of Grapevine Creek and is currently owned by Billingsley Company. The total channel reach length in the study area is approximately 3,500 feet. The project is currently partially located within the FIS (Flood Insurance Study) 100-year floodplain (See Fig. 2 for FIRM detail). Fill is proposed to be placed in a portion of the 100-year floodplain ineffective area for land development purposes. Details of the improvements will be introduced in the hydraulics section of this report. C. Purpose Halff Associates, Inc. was retained by Billingsley Company to develop a floodplain reclamation plan for Grapevine Creek floodplain within the 158+ acre tract. The objective of this study is to provide all necessary information for obtaining a CLOMR from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reflect the 100-year floodplain changes due to the proposed floodplain reclamation. D. Hydrolo~y No new hydrology was performed for this project. The hydrologic data normally is obtained from the FEMA effective model. However, effective models were requested from the FEMA Project Library but could not be provided. Engineering for the effective Dallas County Flood Insurance Study (FIS, 1999 version) was originally performed in 1970's. The most recent study for Grapevine Creek, "City-wide Storm Water Management Study for the City of Irving", was performed by Halff Associates, Inc. in 1991. Halff's 1991 study used _ hydrology (ultimate conditions) from a previous study by others. That study was entitled "City of Coppell Drainage Master Plan" performed by Kimley Horn and Associates in Halff Associates, Inc. 1 1990. The discharges and their break locations in the Halff 1991 model were used in this study. Table 1 lists the 100-year flood peak discharges. Compared to the FIS Report Discharge Table, there is a slight discharge difference between Sections 13620 and 15520 (FIS Report reflects a 100-year discharge 11200 cfs). Tabte 1 100-Year Flood Peak Discharges On Grapevine Creek ~ Location Station 61100 (cfs) Location Station 61100 (cfs) Downstream of 7250-10850 18200 Up to 1600 FT upstream of 7250-12820 9700 MacArthur MacArthur Up to 2300 FT 10935-13339 16600 upstream of MacArthur From 2300 FT 13620-15113 16050 From 1600 FT upstream of 13620-15520 11000 upstream of MacArthur MacArthur E. Hydraulics 1. Effective Model Duplication (Appendices B and C). Analyses of the floodplain and hydraulic characteristics of the study area were performed using the USACE's HEC-2 hydraulic program, which determines probable water surface elevations along the creek for the 100-year flood. Normally, the original effective model can be obtained from the FEMA Project Library through PBSJ. A formal data request was made to PBSJ, but it was determined that there is no digital or hard copy available in the FEMA Project Library (Contact person for PBSJ is Mr. Venkat Venkatraj). Mr. Venkatraj suggested that the previous study in this area performed by Halff Associates, Inc. should be used as the base model. Therefore, the existing conditions model from Halff s 1991 study was used as the effective model for this study. This model was based on the FEMA effective model at the time of that study (1991). The duplicated Halff 1991 models are attached in Appendix B and C, which contain the FIS multi-profile model and floodway model, respectively. 2. Corrected Effective Models (Appendices D and E). The Corrected Effective models are based on the effective models. Based on field surveys and City of Irving topographic maps, the corrected models have been updated and revised as follows: Halff Associates, Inc. 2 1. Seven cross sections (11453, 11588, 12402, 13339, 13829, 14495, 14820 and 15113) have been added in the model to better describe the proposed plan. 2. Cross section 11303 has been updated and renamed as 11301. 3. Section 11313 has also been updated. 4. The roughness factor "n" values on the overbank between sections 11045 to 15113 have been increased from 0.045 to 0.065 to reflect the current state of vegetation. The corrected effective models are attached in Appendices D and E, which contain the multi-profile model and floodway model respectively. 3. Pre-Project Models (Appendices F and G). The pre-project models are an update of the corrected effective models described above, and incorporate the newly constructed Belt Line Road Bridge per the bridge construction plans (see Appendix H). Because of the bridge replacement, sections 15350, 15440, 15470 and 1552 are replaced with Sections 15160 and 15310. In _ addition, the repeat section 13670 (50 ft reach length) is no longer necessary. It has been removed from the model. The reach length upstream section 13829 has been adjusted accordingly. Short segments on Sections 13339 through 14495 were modified slightly to better represent the proposed condition comparison. The modified sections are shown on Figures 4 and 6. These changes to the pre-project model caused slight rises upstream of Section 13339 as shown in Table 2. The pre- project models are attached in Appendices F and G, which contain the multi-profile model and floodway model respectively. 4. Revised (Post-Project) Models (Appendices I, J, and N). We are aware of the CLOMR (Case No: 04-06-A148R) approved May 25, 2005 for the portion of the Billingsley Tract north of Grapevine Creek, but the work associated with this CLOMR has not yet been completed. We are also aware of the LOMR (Case No: 06-06-BE95P) currently under review for a retaining wall constructed south of Grapevine Creek and east of the subject site. Reclamation improvements have been proposed for the right overbank and included in the revised model. The proposed improvements start from Section 13339 and extend through Section 14820 with floodplain reclamation occurring only in the ineffective area near Section 13339. Photographs of the area have been included in Section III. Table 2 summarizes the results for the post-project models. The post-project models are attached in Appendices I, J, and N. Halff Associates, Inc. 3 5. Floodway Models Because the proposed floodplain reclamation is only in the ineffective area, the floodway will not be revised. 6. FullyDeveloped Land Use Condition (Appendices K, L, M, and N) Per the requirements of the City Coppell Floodplain Management Ordinance, floodplain analysis based on the fully developed land use condition was also performed. The 100-year flood peak discharges from the study entitled "City of Coppell Drainage Master Plan" performed by Kimley Horn and Associates in 1990 were used. The 100-year flood discharges reflect the fully developed land use conditions and are larger than the FIS discharges. These fully developed land use models are described as follows: • Existing Model: Grexult.CH2 attached in Appendix K • Corrected Existing Model: 398Cou1t.CH2 attached in Appendix L • Pre-project Model: 398Pru1t.CH2 attached in Appendix M • Post-project Model: 186Pro~ 1.CH2 attached in Appendix N Table 3 summarizes the results for the models under the fully developed conditions. The 100-Year floodplain delineations under the fully developed conditions are shown on Figure 6. Thus, this project completed with the new Belt Line Road ~. Bridge accomplishes one of the city goals proposed in the 1991 study. 7. CDC Permit A review of the Elm Fork Trinity River 100-year and SPF water surface elevations reveal that the proposed reclamation improvements have no impact on Elm Fork Valley Storage, velocity and/or flood elevation. Therefore, a CDC Permit for this proposed project on Grapevine Creek is not needed. 8. Va1leyStora~e Per the City of Coppell Floodplain Management Ordinance (and the City of Irving), the valley storage reduction shall not exceed 15% for the 100-year flood and 20% for the standard project flood if the drainage area is less than 100 square miles. The proposed fill associated with this CLOMR Study causes a valley storage loss of 1 ac-ft. Since the existing storage volume for the property is 441 ac-ft, a 0.2% loss in valley storage will occur. In addition, a comprehensive volume calculation was performed to determine the total storage loss caused by all currently proposed floodplain reclamations for this tract. This included the floodplain reclamation proposed north of Grapevine Creek (Case No.: 04-06-A148R, approved May 25, 2005), the retaining wall at the southeast corner of the property (Case No.: 06- 06BE95P), and the subject site. Based on all three sites on this tract being constructed to plan, the cumulative storage loss will be 64 ac-ft compared to total valley storage volume of 441 ac-ft, or a 14.5 °Io loss under the 100-year fully developed land use condition. Therefore, the valley storage loss for this project is Halff Associates, Inc. 4 within the city allowable limits of 15% for a stream of this size. Valley Storage was calculated using GEOPAK's Digital Terrain Modeling Software. 9. Section 404 Permitting Assessment The proposed West Cell will result in the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, and will require a Section 404 permit. Regulated activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands, will exceed the criteria established by applicable nationwide permits administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and an individual permit will be required. F. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the analysis in this study as described above, the following conclusions can be made: 1. There is no effective model available from the FEMA Project Library. The base models for this analysis are from the CLOMR Case No. 04-06-A148R approved by FEMA on May 25, 2005, which was based on the study entitled "City-wide Storm Water Management Study for the City of Coppell" performed by Halff Associates, Inc. in 1991. The post-project model was also run to consider the improvements modeled in the above mentioned CLOMR as well as the LOMR currently under _ review for this site Case No. 06-06-BE95P. The results were not included in this report since the CLOMR work has not ben constructed yet and the LOMR has not been approved.The original hydrologic and hydraulic models in Halff's 1991 study are from the study entitled "City of Coppell Drainage Master Plan" performed by Kimley Horn and Associates in 1990. It is our understanding that the Kimley-Horm model was the basis of an update of the Coppell FIS at about that time (1990). 2. The proposed BFEs are the same as the Corrected Effective BFEs throughout the entire study area. The revised project has no impact on flood levels at upstream or adjacent locations. A Conditional Letter Of Map Revision is warranted for this project. 3. Most creek channel velocities under the existing conditions are below 6 fps. There are no channel velocity increases due to the proposed project. 4. Backwater analyses under the fully developed land use condition were also performed per City of Coppell Ordinance. The study indicates no water surface elevation increase throughout the entire study area for the proposed project condition. Halff Associates, Inc. 5 The valley storage lost due to this proposed floodplain reclamation project is 0.2% (1 ac-ft loss versus 441 ac-ft existing). The total valley storage loss rate for all proposed floodplain reclamation for this tract is 14.5 % (64 ac-ft total loss from the total valley storage volume of 441 ac-ft under the 100-year fully developed land use condition), which is allowable per the City of Coppell Floodplain Management Ordinance, and City of Irving. 6. Per City of Coppell Floodplain Management Ordinance (and City of Irving), the lowest finished floor has to be a minimum of two (2) feet above the FIS base flood elevation or to one (1) foot above the design (fully developed land use) base flood elevation, whichever is higher. In this study case, 100-year flood water surface elevations under the fully developed land use condition (see Table 3) should be used to set finished floor elevations. Halff Associates, Inc. 6 N v I"' U ~ ~ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O Q 0 O O O O O O O N O Ol G [71 O ~ O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O ~ 4 " 4 ~ Q ~ O ~ O O 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 O`7 0 N 0 0 ~ _ N U J P m m t7 O O O m ~ ~ ~ LL W n m n m 0 0) m ~ n 0 N M N 7 N O n O N O 0 01 V O O m n N m m N a OD O m O f7 _W ~p O O m n N O h m 1f/ N V tLl tl1 m l n t` m m N In C7 fp Y n Q~ y N N 7 0 c7 l7 M O y y V V V V V O h N ~ N ~ N N ~ N N N 1 I 1nf7 1nl1 1nl1 N h N m tN0 t00 t00 O ¢ ~ a y ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ e o o v a a e o v v v a o v v v v a v e e v a v a a o v v U ~ , c p 4 7 n O a m N a O U ~ tn[), anD_ W i. Om [n'~, f el, V O O O Qn i, S Qn i, Imp, ~ 7 ~ N O N O f00 N 1n 1~ 1mf1, tn0. ~ GD 000, fNO, ~ ~ a [h O 7 f00 E O iE p1 _N d 3 v ~ v ~ ~ pp ~ 7 O e V V ~ ~ ~ t} V ef V t} . V V V a V V V ~ V V V O < e v ~n 7 < V V V V O Y O < N C ~ ~ m Z O C ~ _ °° W ^ ~ d a m m v ~ ~ Z Q ~7c U ~ 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 c 0 c 0 o 0 0 o 0 Q 0 o O 0 O 0 O 0 1A 0 T 0 O 0 0 c 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O o ~ Q ~ g ~ q _ Q _ 4 O 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 0'7 0 N 0 ~ 0 m ~ ~ ~ o a ~- ~ m ~ U J W W n f0 n m 0 O/ O l n f9 C'7 N V N O n O N O O Of O O O m n !O m N C1 O t0 0 O CA m O O t0 n N O 1f~ m 1n N V f0 0 t0 0 1~ m n m t0 0 (? W 1n 1!1 O f7 m t0 V t~ ~ •p ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Yo ~ Y ~ a ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d a ~ ~ '~} ~ ~ RN ~ V LL O ~ -' U n tn0 OnD [701 ~~pp 0/ l9 ~ V O O O W p 8 W n ~ V pp O1 Im p 8 N mm O m N IA (p N 1m m r OD W fN0 ~ (`m') ~ aa O V m C Q Q (A . v ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ v a ~ ~ ~ ~ v a ~ v a v a v v v v e e • a ~ _ ~v ~ v `~v v ~ Z e g a ~ m 3 U Y m ~° W W ~' (} _ ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1n rn rn w rn a n m 70 1n v ~ a 1n m o v> c v, a 0 v 1n 0 n 0 m 0 h 0 N 0 m o M c Q U ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Z ~ z O W ~ > c c G Q J W> F U LL W n m n ao 0 a ~i n w c~+ N v ~' n o ~' Si ~ o m n °~ m N n n ~ v 1`~i m m m rn ~ m n ~ O ao m m m .- ~'i ~i O N m m '~ v `~ fl1 ~ m ro S'i m rn N rn N w g U ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ _ ~ , ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ , v v v ~ ~ v v ~ ~ • ~ ~ v ~ ~ v a a ~ v~ a v v ~ ~ Z W W ~ " ~` a v v v a a w 0 > ~L U ~ W fn0 anD ~ Of Cn1 ~ V O G C Obi 8 ~ ° .^- a ~ n m m N O m IA m N v N o E W O m $ Of 0 0 $ N oSr, a s fNO. n ~ L W O R ° ° U a _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a a ~ ~ ~ v v ~ a ~ ~v ~ ~ v `$v v ~ ~ v v `~v v ~ m m ~ C3 N v ~ V ~ Z U ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ m ~ ~ w ~` ` s O V ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v~ v v7 v m e m 0 w 0 rn o m c m o m 0 W o m c o = o ~ m o m 0 a 0 v 0 R '~ LL o o c o c o 0 0 o Q o 0 0 o c o c o . w ~ U J n n m c9 m n a m n m ~ n ~ N oo N ~ ~ m ~ M n n O N co m N m m ~ m ~ l7 ~ m o ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ v OV ~ ~ N ~ N ~ O7 ~ l7 ~ Pf ~ N ~ OV ~ ~ gg 3 ~ ~ ~ ~' v ~ '~ ~ ~ CL v O/ e O! v ~ `vo° O v O a O v v a N `~ ~ a`~ `~a 3 o v ~ ~ J n n N mm n Y N m N n OD m ~ O CA N f f7 O N h o t~ m .- aD (7 O Y O M m l ~ p O m O ~ ~ ~ p O W N ~ ~ 0 Y7 a 0 f n ~ ~ Z •K ~ tL) OD W Of N y 0 ~ h ~ y~ . { V V V V 0 p V O ~ pp ~~pp 1 V O O d O O tpp O O t p C,7 ~ ~ ~ y ~ V ~ V V V O O < O Z W N L p O p O Q V Q '~+ Q '~+ Q `+ Q " Q `-' Q `-' Q `-' Q `~' Q `•' Q `° Q " Q `° Q `-' Q, `-' Q `~ 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 -O 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 pp 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 g g g ~ (~ n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n ~ rn rn rn rn m rn m rn rn m rn m rn m a rn a rn ~ w N C W y ~ y W ~0 ~ .p ~ 2 2 ~ 41 m m i a `_ ~ 6 3 mU a s ¢ ¢° ~ ~ `` m c z f ~ o o ~ ~ m m •• Z 2 p o c .o p 'a F c Q m ¢ ¢ Z p ' v v ~• ~ o m ` ` ~ E y d E O ~ J ~ ti v 0 0 0 o f 0 ~ O O U) 4] ~ W fn N ~ n o U o ~ m o ~ o ~ `o m c N 0 m Q cC 2 Z J ~ C LL Q O _W Z > K m _ ~ W J C R{ ~ ~ W m ~ ~ '~ U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O c7 0 a 0 P] 0 V 0 J e o e o p e o N O 10 o e o e d j o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 a p ~ ~ Q Qa ~ ~ R ~ U Z Q ~, U N a V] 1n OI a ~ ~ 1n N Ol CJ n M m W IA ~ m n M n ~ W m e m lD 1n N 1n 01 N p 8 m 0 1f] n N m e e N n 01 m a m O) n ~ N W O) (`) t9 O .- P9 m In N O 1n m 1n [7 n ~ ~~ , ~ O Q a j t0 m m m m m m n ~ n ~ m m ~ N M N e 1n Ol n n m m n n O) m m ~ n Ol n m 1n n e m m ~ O ~ a O > o ¢ w a ~ m ao ~ ~~ M 10n N 1W0 ~ Oni O n o 1m0 ~ N N e ooi u°'i m V i n n N c~ O N M N M I 1Nn ten y W m ~p S ~ OeD n amD L d ~~ m . m m m m m e n m m 1n m m e m e 0 1n , 1n , 1n 1n N 1n N 1n 1~ 1n 1n n 1n m 1n m 1n m 1n m 1n 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m m N 10 [O m 1~ . e m p U e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e i e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ~ W ¢ a Z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 p O p 0 8 8 p 0 O 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 8 p O p 0 8 8 N 0 W m N b O N V01 S p O p O ~ f0 ~O t D t 0 OD ~O t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 t 0 (O t O t 0 I~ I~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 ~ N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N m m m m m m m m m 1D 10 t0 1 0 S S m S t 0 1q Iq N N e 1n 1n O) e ~ 1n N O) c0 n M m W 1n ° m n M n O) °? W m e m c7 n 1n a O N e O aD 1n m O) .- N 1n e a (h n fh e m ~ n ~ N m t7 N N n 1n 1n m m M M t7 M m m m m m m m n ~ n ~ m m N 1n m ca 1n 1n rn ~ ~ m rn m m ° m m m m w r m e m v m F j U a m W Y ~ ( 7 i j ~ (q W O t N v In m Of O n Oi N O m n 01 n m m m N N 0 N e 01 c7 Oa l7 O e n O ~ c7 ~ N ~ O n m c7 1n 10 m n O ~D O a Of 1 1n n o e m N Of b n e m ~ m N V ~ 2 m o m 7 m tD m f0 I~ 10 tD N ~ m m m O N N N ci u1 m 1~ m m m m n D ~ ~ N f7 ~ 1n 1n = ZO d 3 U ~ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1n e 1n e 1n e u~ e 1n e 1n e 1n e 1n e 1n e ~ e 1n e 1n e 1n e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e 1 e m e m e V F z O a Z a v W W ~ J ~ W W G LL J ~ ~ N e N 1n Q~ e ~ 1n N O) M n (h m O1 h O) ~ f0 n f`') n pmj 0~ m e m t+1 n m e 10 N ~n M O e O m e m 0) ~ O m N O m n m ~ 1n N n O e O] N m N e N m e n O M m m N m n 0 e ~ ~ tD tC 1D m 1G m m f~ Ih ~ W m ~ ~ t7 l7 N 1n m Oi f~ n 10 O1 Oi m 1O tO m /0 1G ~C t0 r tri m M N m 1n > to a N -~ ~ p ~ W O J U Q ~ W Omi j t O W M M w V M M O Y1 N 1~ O m O) T n Ol N O m I 0) h m f0 m ~ N N 0 N e O) 07 Ol u7 @~ O e I~ m OD O) 0~ e ~ M ~ n m l7 t0 O O e M M m m l7 t0 O N e 7 e 10 Y 0 l0 O~ 1q n T C~ m aD m N M t9 3 W N m m m f0 m m h ~ m m m !a m aD O N N N N m 1G h m Of Oi e e e e a 1n ui 1C tG S e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1n 1n h h 1n N 1n a 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n m m 1c m m m m ~ ~ m m m m m J ¢ Z e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e W O ~ = U O ~ O r N ~U W = > ~ ~ N e N N 1O e ~ p f7 In e a V 01 O S ~ ~ ~ W O n N ~ O p~ O M N f` 01 W m 1p O O N tD m uJ c7 a N t7 N aO ~ ~ e c7 O m Cl N e n n th p C ~ 1C /G 10 1G aD 1p tD ED aD ~ ~ f~ C7 ~ ~ n O) O) h t0 tG aC tG tG 1C tC h N ui (M 1!j t+l N ; H N J LL ~ X W Q. ~ i j O e N Of n 0 1n N m O) f7 m n 1n m O W m 10 O O N O 1n [") a 1n 0~ 1 m N m e N N V1 M e m m nn e e N O~ W N m M (7 ~ ch V1 u7 m m m rn m m m ~ ~ i i ~ O < Y V f V n N ) G 0 ? 3 m f0 e tG e t0 e f0 e f0 e t0 e cU e (O e 1N e f0 e I e O 1n to in e v~ O 1n O 1n 10 1o m m m 10 10 m m V m U m f m t m F y U ~ e e e e e e e e e e e a e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e X Z i W f o ~ p r 1 / 1 N 6 " ~ ~ p N .~ ;, ~ ~ _ ~- . W a m i rn 2 ~; m m ~ o ~ ~ ~ 3 m U a m s m ¢ ¢ m m ~ L° E p ~ ~ ~ m ~ ` ~ ~ Z . Z z p o 0 ro 0 o < r < ~ m m b ~ ~ p ~= v m ~i a a m m ¢ ¢ `° ~ E~ U u . ti o ~ o 0 0 0 O C v _ J ~ ci U o ~ W o ~ o ~ M iD N f~ ~U O m REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL LETTER Of MAP REVISION AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BILLINGSLEY TRACT, IRVING, TEXAS II. Application/Certification Forms With Attachments U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY -FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY O.MB Na 1668-A916 OVERVIEW ~ CONCURRENCE FORM sxplr+erwagrr31,2B07 PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE Public reportk-g burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data Sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You ere not required to respond to this collection of infOrrnation unless a valid OMB control rwmber appears in the upper right comer of this form- Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Infortnetion Collections Management, U.5. Deparbnent of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, PaperwoM1c Reduction Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Ptsase do not send your completed A REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM DHS-FENW This request is fora (check one) ® CLOMR: A letter from OHS-FEMA commenting onwhether a proposed project, If built as proposed, wouldjustify a m~ revislon, or proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1, Parts 60, 65 8 72). ^ LOMR: Aietter from DHS-FEMA officialy revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to fioodplains, regulatory floodway or gcotl elevations. (See Parts 60 8 65 of the NFIP Regulations.) B. OVERVIEW t. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are): Communi No. Communi Name State Ma No. Panel No. Effective Date Ex: 480301 City of Katy TX 480301 OOOSD 02/08/83 480287 Hares Cou TX 48201C D220G 09!28/90 480180 City of Irving, Dallas County TX 48113C 0155) 08/23/01 480170 City of Coppell, Dallas County TX 48113C 0155) 08/23/01 480171 City of Dallas, Dallas County TX 48113C 0155) 08/23/01 2. Flooding Source: Grapevine Creek 3. ProjectNamelldend6er 158+ Acre Billingsley Tract 4. FEMA zone designations affected:AE (choices: A, AH, AO, A7 {130, A99, AE, AR, V, V1-V30, VE, B, C, D, X) 5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply) ® Physical Change ^ Improved Methodobgy/Data ^ Regulatory Floodway Revision ^ Other (Attach Description) Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review. b. The area of revision encompasses the following types of flooding end stnxxures (check aM that apply) Types of Flooding ®Riverine ^ Coastal ^ Shallow Flooding (e.y.. Zones AO and AH) ^ Alluvial tan ^ Lakes ^ Other (Attach Desaiption) Structures: ^ Channelization ^ LeveelFloodwaq ®Bridge/Culvert ^ Dam ^ Fill ^ Other, Attach Description DHS- FEMA Form 81-89. FEB 06 Overview & Concurrence Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 1 of 2 C. REVIEW FEE Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been induded9 ®Yes Fee amount: $ 4 , 000.00 ^ No, Attach Explanation Please see the DHS-FEMA Wpb site at htt :!/www.fema. v/fhmlfrm fees.shtm for Fie Rmounts and Exem tlons. D. SIGNATURE All documents submitted in support of this request ere correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that any false statement may be purrshable by fine orimprisonment under7itle 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001. Neme:Henry Billingsley Company: Billingsley Co. Mailing Address: Daytime Telephone No.: Fax No.: 4100 International Parkway #1100 (972) 82D-0544 (972) 820-0540 Carrollton, Texas 75007 E-MailAddress:hbillingsley@billingsleyco.com Signature of Requester (required}: Oate: As the community affroial responsible for floodplain management. 1 hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision {LOMR) a conditional LOMR request. 8asedupon the communRys review, we find the completed aproposed project meats orls designed to meat all of the community floodplain management requirements, includng the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that ell necessary Federal, State, and local permits have been, or In the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are orwill be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR ti5.2(c), and that we have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination. Community Offical's Name and Title: Telephone No.: Garry Fennell, Senior Civil Engineer (972) 721-3721 Community Name: Community Officai's Signature {requiredj: Date: City of Irving CERTiFiCAT1ON BY REGISTERED PROFESSfONAL ENGINEER ANDr<OR LAND SURVEYOR This ceitificatan is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, Or architect authorized bylaw to certify elevation information. All kiocumeMs sutxndted in support of this request are correct to the best of my krxrirledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18 otthe United States Code, Section 1001. Certitiefs Name: License No.: 6cpiration Date: Walter E. Skipwith 48752 12/31/2006 Company Name' Telephone No.: Fax No.: Halff Associates, Inc. (214) 346-6220 (214} 273-1307 Signature: C„ ~ _ Date: Ensure the forms tl~at aro appropriate to your revision request tre included In your submittal. Form Name and tiVumberl Reauirod K ... ^ Rivenne Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2} New or revised discharges orwater-surface elevations ^ Rivenne Structures Form (Porn 3) Channel is modified, eddition/revision of bridgelcutverts, additionhevision otlevee/flookhvall, additionfievision of dam ^ Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4) New or revised coastal elevations ^ Coas-el Structures Form (Form 5) Additionlrevision of coastal structure ^ Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6} Flood cnrt<ro! measures on alluvial fans DHS-FEMA Form 81-89, FEB O6 Overview & Conctxrence Form MT-2 Form 1 Page 2 of 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY -FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAG9NBJTAG9dCY aata~tte, leis RIVERINE HYQROLOGY ~ HYaRAULICS FORM ~a++~as: ~wuarsr, 21)07 PAPERWORK REWCTfON ACT Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.25 hours per response. The burden es6mete includes the time for reviewirg instructions. searching existing data sources, gathering and mairdairrrg the needed data, end completing, reviewing. and submlting the form. You are not required to respond to this cdledion of lnbrmation uNess a veld OMB control number appears in the upper right corner Of this brm. Send comments reganing rho aCarracy of rho burden estlmete and any suggestions br redudrg tllis burden to: Infortrtetlon tANaCtlOr1S tvtartftperrlerx, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Frmeryawy Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, WastYrgion DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction Pro)ed (16ff0.0016). Sutanission of tt-e fomt is r+oqulrsd to obtain or retain DeneNts under tfie Ne6onel Food Insurence program. Plea do not send com bled sure to tM above address. Flooding Souroe: Nob: Fit out one form for eedl Iloodirg source studed A HYDROLOGY 1. Reason for New Hydrdogic Analysis (check al Ihat apply) ® Nat revised (slop to sedion 2) ^ No existing ar>elysis ^ Ynproved data ^ Alternative methodology ^ Proposed Condtions (CLaMR) ^ Changed physical condition of watershed 2. Comparison of Representative 196,Arxruai-C;hartoe gscharges Location Oreinege Area (Sq. bi.) FIS {cfs) Revised (ds) 3. MelhodotogyforN~wHydrotogfoArralysis /~~~th~tepply) B Statistical Analysis of Gage Records 8 Preapitat'aNRrxpfl Mode! (TR•20, HEC-1, HEG+MAS etc.j Regionet Regression Equations Olher (please attach description) Please enclose aN relevant models in digital bnnat, maps. co (indudlrg oomputetlan of parameters) end doamentatiart lp support the new analysis. The dOCUment, Tlunwrical Models Accepted by~EMAA~for NNFIP Usago' ksts ttq models accepted by DHS~FEMA. THS doairr-ent can be found d: hltp~www.fema.gov/itrrn/en_modsfitrn. 4. Review/Appnpvat otMalysis If your communityrequires aregional, stela, or federal agency to review Lhe hydrologic analysk, please attach evidence of approvaUreview. 5. Mipads of Sediment Transport on Hydrology Was sedtmeR transport oortsidered7 ^ Yes ^ Ho dyes, then 111 out Section F {Sediment Trenspat)ofFomr 8. )f No, then attach your explanation for why sedimont transport was not oorrsidered. B~ HYDRAIlUCS 1. Reach to be ReviseA Description Crass Sedan WaterSurfaoe Elevations (R) Elfedive Proposedh2evised Downstream Umt Upstream Umit 2. Hvtlr~tic M~11od Used Hydraulic Analysis [HEC-2 . HEC-RAS, Other (Attach deSagionJj HEC-2 l7HS - FEMA Form 81-ti9A, FEB 06 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Forth Z Page t or Z 3. PreSubmittal Review of Hvdraulic Models DHSfEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the rv~rivw of HEC-? and HEGRAS hydraulic models, respectively. These review programs ven(y A~et the hydraulic estinetes and essumptans in the model date are h accordance with NFP requrements, end that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limietions of HEG2MEGRAS. CHECK 2 and CHECK-RAS identiy areas of potential error a concerrx. Those tools do not replace ergneedrg judgment. CHECK-2 end CHECK-RAS can be dowMoeded from Mtp:/Mrww.fema.gov/lim/frm soti.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 end HEC~f2AS models with CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS. if you disagree with a message, please attach an explanation of why the message is rat void h this case. Review of your submittal end resdution of void modeing discrepancies wip result in reduced review time. HEG2/HEC-RAS models reviewed wtih CHECK-2/piECK-RA.S? ® Yes ^ No 4. ~odelsy~ effect ®DisketteSutxniied J;Io odwavRun ~ Dupicate Effective Model' File Name: Plan Neme: Fie Name: Plan Name: Corroded Effective Model' Fie Name: Plan Name: Fie Name: Plan Name: Existing or Pre-Project Condtions Model Fie Nine: Plan Narne: FNe Name: PianName: Revised or Post-ProJed Corxtitions Model Fie Name: Plan Name: FAe Name: Plan Name: Other- (attach desaiptlon) Fie Name: Plan Name: Fie Name: Plan Name: 'Not required for revisions to approximate 196-annualchance Aoodplains (Zone A) -for details, rater to the corresponding section of the instrud'arxs. The docunent "Numerical Models Accepted by Ft7NA for NFIP Usage' lists the modek accepted txy DFIS-FEMA, This doament can be found at: http://www. iem a. gov/fiun/en_modl .s htm. C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTt`a A certlfled topognphlc mrap must be submited stowing the following Inbrtr-atan {where appicable): the boundaries of the etfectae, eodsting, and proposed conditions 196-amuel-cherwe Iaodplain (for approxmate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 19tr and 0.296•ennual-d~ence ioodplains and regulatory Aoodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, end AH revisions): location end alignment of ail cross sectlons with statiaNng control indicated: stream. road. and other eAgnments (e.g., dams. levees. etc.): arrant oommtrxiy eesemerds end bourxlaries: lwrtndaries of the requesters property, certification of a registered prolessionel engineer registered h the subject State; location and description of reference rtrerts; end the referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.). Note that the boundaries of Ale existir-9 or proposed conditions Aoodpleiris end regulatory Aood+vay to be shown on the revised FIRM errd-or FBFM must Ae-ln wRh the ettecAve AoodplaYi and r~gMabry Aoodwey botxldarks. Ptoase attach a copy of the effective FlRiA andfor FBFM, erxrotatvd to show the boundaries of Ate revised 196- aM 0.29i-arxrual~hance Aoodplains and story Aoodwey that tie-in wtih the boundaries of the effective 196- end 0.2!(rannuai-d~anoe Aoodpteh and reguatory Aoodway at the upstr+eem a ~dowrrtream Iimis of the yea of revision. ® Mnotated FA2M endbr FBF7W Y>cluded ^ Digial Data SutxnAted Q COMMON REGULATORY REf~11REME>i1TS" For CLOMR roqueats, If etfrer of the tdawtng is true, please sulxnit evidence of compliance with Seddon 6''.x.12 of the NFIP regulations: • The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory Iloodway end would result in increases atxove 0.00 bot. • The proposed project errs oactxes upon a SFtiAwith orwiAwut BFEs establistxed aM would result in ina+eeses above 1.00 foot. 2. Does the request MrroNe the placement or f~posed placement of Ai? ® Yes ^ No It Yes, the community must be able b certify that the area b be removed from the special Aood hazard area, to include any structures or Proposed structures, meets 9II of the standards of the bcel Aoodplah ordinances, and is reasonably safe from AoorAng in axondance with the NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(ax3), 65.5(ax4}, and 65.6(x)(14). Please sec the A4'f-2 Instnxilorxs for more hbnrxetion. 3. For LOMR,CI.OMR requests, is Axe regulatory ioodwey being revised? ^ Yes ®No If Yes, attafi evidence ofregulabry Aoodway revision notikxtion. Asper Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, ratiArnttion is required for requests irwolving revisions b the regulatory Aoodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 196-emueFdience Aoodpfains [studied Zone A designation] mess a regulatory Aoodway is being added. Elements end examples of regulatory Aoodway revision notiicatiort can be found in the M'F-2 Form 2 !ns[rtxtions. } 4. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, does Ails request have the potential to impact an endangered spades? ^ Yes jRJ fro If Yes, please SutxnR doCUmentatton Mom ttxe corrxrtwnily to show that they have oompied with Sections S end 10 of Ara Endangered Spades ACt (ESA). Sedan 8 of the ESA prohibits anyone Yom 'taldrrg' or banning an endangered spades. If an actlon might harm an endangered spades, a permit is requk+ed from U.S. Fish and V4fldifeServtoe orNationel MarheFtsherlec Service uxderSectlon 10 of the ESA. For actions auttxxized, fended, or being canted out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentatan from the agency shaving is compliance with Section 7(x}(2) of the ESA 5. For LOMR requests, does ttrs request require property owner nodiic:ation end axeptance of 8FE increases? ^ Yes ®No If Yes. please attach proof of property ownerratiicetion and accetxarrce (rt xvaiaiole). Elements of end examples of property owner notiAcetion Can Do bold in the MT-2 Form 2 InWfuddons. For detaNS,:es DHS - FEMA Fonn 81-89A, FE6 06 Riverine Hydrology 6 Hydrertcs Form MT-2 Form 2 Pege 2 of 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTAGENCY axa~- ts6e~trc RIVERiNE STRUCTURES i=ORM ~trrr.•ws~rr.~f, sari PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT Public reporting txxden for this form is es6meted to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate indudes the time br reviewing inshzctioru. searching existing date sources, gatherirq and maintalNng the needed data. and Completing, reviewing end submitting the town. You are not regt~red to respond to ttis collection of nbrmetian unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right Comer of this form. Send Comments regarrirg the accuracy of the burden estlmate and any suggestions for reducirg this burden to: Infomratlon Colections Management, U.S. ()apartment of Homeland Secuniy, Federal Emergency Menegemert Agency, 500 C Street, SW, washington DC 20412, Paperwork Reduction t~n+oject (1640-0016) ~Submissbn of the toms is required to obtain or retain benefRs urderthe IVatbrral Flood Insurance Program, Pltass do not send Floo6ng Source: Nob: FiN out one form br each Iloodinp source studed A. GENERAL Complete the appropriate sectbn(s) toreach Structure Nsted bebw: Chamelization ............... complete (section B BridgelCuNert ................ complete Section C Dam ......... ....................... Complete Section D LeveefFtoodwai ............. complete Section E Sediment Transport,,.,.... complete Section F {if required) (~esoriDtion Of Stnrcture Belt Line Road Bridge over Grapevine Creek 1. Name oPStructure: Type (checlt one): ^ C2rar>rreifastion ~J BridgeJCuNert Locatbn of Structure: 600 LF upstream of the study site. Downstream LimrT/Cross Section: 15160 Upsireem t.imiUCross Section: 15310 2. Name otStructun: Type (check one): ^Chamelization Locatbn of Slrudure: Ocwnstrearn umlGCross Section: ^ BridgelCutveR ^ LeveeiFbodwall ^ Levee~Fbodwdt ^ Dam ^ Dam Upstream UmitlCross Section: 1 J. Nrn• of Stratton: Type (check one) ^ Chaneaaation Location of Structure: Downstream um'tlCnoss Section: Upstream umit/Cross Section: p 8ridgeACuNert ^ LeveerFbodwell ^ Dam NOlE: For more structures, attach attdiNonal pages as tlxeded, Of•iS - FEMA Form 81-898, FEB 06 Riverine SIR1Chlres Forrn MT-2 Form 3 Page 1 of 10 Floodng Source: Name of Structure: t. ACOBSSONSIR1Chl25 The chenneizetion includes (check one): ^ levees (Attach Sedion E (le~ee/Fbodwell}} ^ Supereleveted sections ^ Debris besiNdetention bash ^ Other (pesaibe) 7. Drawine Checldist Q Drop ctrudures ^ Transitions in cross sectional geometry ^ Energydissipetor Attach the plans of the channelizetion certified by a registered professional engineer, es described h the irutrud'rons. 3. Hvdraulic Considerations The drannel was designed to carry (cfs}and/or the -yrear flood. The design elevation in the Channel is based On (check one}: ^ Subcriticel flow ^ Critical lbw ^ Supercnticel Aow ^ Energy grade line tl Mere is the poterdial for a hydreuficjump at the bNowing locations, check all that apply and a@eoh ah explanation of hvw the hydraulic jump is corrtrolled without affecting the stability of the charnel. ^ Inlet to channel ^ Outlet of channel ^ At Drop Structures ^ At Transitions ^ other bcations (specify): ;. Sediment Transport Considerations Yl~s sediment transport o0nsidered? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, then ill out Sedion F (SedimelY Transport}. H No, then attach your explanation for why sedmert ttarrsPort was not carl5idered. Q BRIOGElCULVERT Flooding Source: Name of Stnxttxg: i. This revision roAocts (check one}: ^ New brfdgeJaAvert not modeled h the FIS ^ Modified bridger<culvert previously modeled in the F IS ^ New arrslysis of bridgekufvert previously modeled in the FIS 2. Hydraulic model used to endyze the stn~dure ie.g., HEC-2 With spedd txidge routine, YV5PR0, HY8}: If difkreM then hydrauNC analysis for the Aoo6ng souroe, justifywhythe tiydrauic analysis used forthe Noodrg source could not analyze the stn.rdures. Attach justiNcation. 3. Attach Bans of the stn~ciures certiNed bya registered professional engineer. The pan detaN and information should hdude the bNOwing (check the intonnetion that has been provided}: ^ Dimensions (heght, width, span, radius, letgth} ^ Shape (CUNerts only} ^ Materiel ^ Bevelhg or Rount%ng ^ 1Mng VV~1 Angle ^ Skew Angle ^ Distances Between Cross Sedans 4. Seamen TranspoR Corrsgeretians ^ Erosion Protection ^ Low ChoN Qevations -Upstream and Downstream ^ Top of Road Elevations-Upsteam and Downstream ^ Stnxdure InvertElevations -Upstream and Downstream ^ Stream Ixert Elevations -Upstream and Downstream ^ CrossSeCtlon locations Was sedimerx transport oonsiderec» ^ Yes ^ No If yas, then tIN out Sedion F (Sediment Transport}. tf No, then attach your explanation forwhy sedKnent transport was not Considered. DHS - FEtvS4 Form 81-89B, FEB O6 Riverine Stnxhres Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 2 of 10 D_ DAM Flooding Souroe: Name of Structure: 1. This request is for (check one): ^ Existing dam ^ New dam ^ Modification of existing dam 2. The dam was designed by (check one): ^ Federal agency ^ State agency ^ Local government agency ^ Private organ¢ation Name of the agency or organization: 3. The Dam was permitted as (d,ed< one} ^ Federal Dam ^ State Dam ^ Local Govemment Dam ^ None Provide the permit or identification number (ID) for the dam and the appropriate permitting agency or organization Permit or ID number Permitting Agency or Organ¢ation 4. Does the project irnoNe revised hydrology? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2}. 5. Does the submittal indude debris/sediment yield analysis? ^ Yes ^ No If yes, then fill out Section F {Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your ex planation forwhy debris/sediment analysis was not considered. 6. Does the Base Flood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydroogy & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below. Stifiwater Elevation Behind the Dam FREQUENCY {% annual chance) FIS REVISED 10-year { 10%} 50-year{296) 100-year (1 %} 500-year (0.2%) Normal Pool Elevation 7. Please attach a copy of the formal Operetion and Maintenance Plan DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B. FEB 06 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 3 of 10 1. System Elements a. This Levee/FloodwaN analysis is based on (check one): ^ upgrading of an existing levee/tioodwall system ^ a newly constructed levee/lloodwall system ^ reanalysis of an existing levee/fiood~rall system b. Levee elements and locations are (check one): ^ earthen embankment, dike, berm, eta. Station to ^ structural Aoodwall Station to ^ Other describe): Station to , a Structural Type (check one): ^ monolithic cast~n place reinforced concrete ^ reinforced concrete masonry block ^ sheet piling ^ Other{describe): d. Has this leveelfloodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, bywhich agency? e. Attach certified drawings containing the folbvring information (indicate drawing sheet numbers}: 1. Plan of the levee embankment and Aoodwatl structures. Sheet Numbers: 2. A profile of the IeveeAloodwall system shovdrg the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and/or wall crest and foundation, and closure locations torthe total levee system 3. A profle of the BFE, cbsure opening outlet and inlet irnert elevations, type and size of opening, end land of closure. Sheet Numbers: Sheet Numbers: 4. A layout detei forthe embankment protection measures. 5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee emb~kment features, foundation treatment, Aoodwall structure, closure structures, and pump stations. 2. Freeboard a. The miramum freeboard provided above the BFE is: R iverine 3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout 3.5 feet or more at the upstream end 4.0 feet within 100 ket upstre~n of all structures and/or constrictions Sheet Numbers: Sheet Numbers: Coastal 1.0 foot above the height of the one peroer~ wave assodated with the 196-annual-chance stillwatersurgeelevation or maximum wave runup (whidieveris greater}. 2.0 feet above the 196-annual-dunce stillwater surge elevation E tcoNnNUm~ ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No ^ Yes ^ No DHS - FEMA Form 81-896, FEB O6 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 4 of 10 2. Freeboard fcontinuedl Please note, occasionaNy exceptans are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation addressing Paregreph 65.10(bX1 j{ii} of the NFIP Regulations. If No is answered to any of the atxrre, please attach an explanation. b. Is there an indication from historical records that ice-jamming can affect the BFE? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, provide ice~am analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists. 3. Closures a. Openings through the levee system {check one}: ^ exists ^ does not exist If opening exists, list all dosures: Channel Station Lett a Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation far O Invert Type of gosure Device (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference} Note: Geotechnical and gedogic data In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the design analysis for the fopawing system features should be subrflflted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Amry Corps of Engineers [USACEJ EM-111!}21906 Form 2086.) 4. Embankment Protection a. The maximum levee slope landside is: b. The maximum levee slope floodside is: c. The range ofvelocities alongthelevee during the base flood is: {min.) to (max.) d. Embaknkment material is pr~otecfied by (describe what kind): e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): ^ Velocty ^ Tractive stress Attach references Flaw Curve or Stone ~PreP Depth of Reach Sidesk~pe Depth Vd~y Straight D~~ D~ Thickness Toedown Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to Sta to (Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry) DHS - FEMA Form 81-898, FEB O6 Riverine Structures Fam MT-2 Form 3 Page 5 of 10 F I FVFFlFI nnnuuer ~ ~rnu~nur~rn~ 4. Embankment Protection fcontinuedl f. Is a bedding/filter analysis and design attached? ^ Yes ^ No g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (indude copies of the design analysis}: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 5. Em bar>Funent And Foundation Stability a. Identify locations and describe the basis far selection of aitical location for analysis: ^ Overall height: Sta. ;height R. ^ Limiting foundation soil strength: Sta. ,depth to strength ~ = degrees, c = psf slope: SS = {h) to (v) (Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations) b. Spec(y the embanlvnent stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arC, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.): c. Summary of stabAity analysis results: Case Loading Conditions Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Min.) I End of construction 1.3 II Sudden drawdown 1,0 III Critical Aood stage 1.4 IV Steady seepage at Hood stage 1.4 VI Earfhqu~ke (Case I) 1.0 (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1) d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, describe methodology used: e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? ^ Yes ^ No f. Were upift pressures at the embaNunent landside toe checked? ^ Yes ^ No g. Were seepage exit gradients chedked for piping potential? ^ Yes ^ No h. The duration of the base Aood hydrograph against the embanfament is hours. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plus. DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, FEB 06 Riverine Stn~ctures Form MT-2 Farm 3 Page 6 of 10 E IFVEEfFLOOaAiALL /CONT1NUm1 6. Floodwall And Foundation Stabiity a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one): ^ UBC{1988) or ^ Other(spedfy): b. Stability analysis submitted provides for: ^ Overturning ^ Sliding If not, explain: c. Loading inducted in the analyses were: - ^ Lateral earth ~P~ = psf; Po = psf ^ Surcharge-Slope @ ^ surtace psf ^ NAnd ~ Pw = psf ^ Seepage (Uplift); ^ Earthquake @ P., = 96g ^ 146-annual-chance significant wave height: ft. ^ 196-annual~hance significant wave period: sec. d. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety. Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading conddion limitation for each respective reach.. Criteria (Min) Sta To Sta To Loading Condition Overturn Siding Overturn Sliding Overturn Sliding Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5 Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5 Dead, Soil, Flood, & 1.5 1.5 Impact Dead, Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3 {Ref: FEMA 114 Sept 1986; USACE EM 1110-2-2502) {Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference) e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type: Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf) Short Tenn Loed (psf) Computed design maximum Maximum allowable f. Foundation scour protection ^ is, ^ is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation: Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. DHS -FEMA Form 81-89B, FEB O6 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 7 of 10 L 7. Settlement a. Has antiapated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the spedfied construction elevations to maintain the established freeboard margin? ^ Yes ^ No b The computed range of settlement is ft. to ft. c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from ^ Foundation consolidation ^ Embankment compression ^ Other {Describe}: d. Differential settlement of floodwalis ^ has ^ has rat been accommodated in the structural design and construction. Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans. 8. fntertorDrainaoe a. Specify size of each interiorwatershed: Draining to pressure condufl: acres Dreining to ponding area: acres b. Relationships Established Ponding elevation vs. storage ^ Yes ^ No Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow ^ Yes ^ No Differehtial head vs, gravity flow ^ Yes ^ No c. The aver flow duration curve is enclosed: ^ Yes ^ No d. Specify the discharge capaaty of the head pressure conduit: cfs e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed? • Gravity flow (krterior Watershed) ^ Yes ^ No • Common storm {River Watershed} ^ Yes ^ No • Historical ponding probability ^ Yes ^ No • Coastal wave overtopping ^ Yes ^ No If No for any of the above, attach explanation. f. Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joird probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capaddes of pumping and outlet faalities to provide the established level of flood protection. ^ Yes ^ No If No, attach explanation. g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is cis h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage ante in item g: ft. DHS - FEMA Fonn 81-896, FEB O6 Riverine Stn~eiures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 8 of 10 F_ 1 FVFFIFI AAnMfel l_ /CL'~NTINIIFI]1 8. InteriorDreinaae (continued) ' i. Wtll pumping plants be used for interior drainage? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, indude the number of pumping plants: For each pumping plant, list: Plats #1 Plan #2 The number of pumps The ponding storage capacity - The maximum pumping rate The maximrxn pumping head The pumping starting elevation The pumping stopping elevation Is the disdiarge fadlity protected? Is there a flood warning plan? How much time is available betweenwaming and flooding? Will the operation be automatic? ^ Yes ^ No If the pumps are electric, are there backup power souroes? ^ Yes ^ No (Reference: USACE EM-1110-2101, 3102, 3103, 3104, and 3105) Irldude a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all interiorwatersheds that result in flooding. 9. Other Design Crderia a. The fdbwing items have been addressed as stated: Liquefaction ^ is ^ is not a problem Hydrocompaction ^ is ^ is rat a problem Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/srreM ^ is ^ is not a problem b. For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken: Attach supporting documentation c. If the leveelfloodvvall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velodties floodsrde of the structure? ^ Yes ^ No Attach supporting documentation d. Sediment Transport Considerations: Was sediment transport considered? ^ Yes ^ No If Yes, then fll out Section F (Sediment Transport). If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. OHS - FEMA Form 81-896, FEB 06 Riverine Sblrctures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 9 of 10 E 10. Operational Plan And Crderia a. Are the plannedlnstalled works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFtP Regulations? ^ Yes ^ No b Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for dosure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10{c}{1) of the NFIP regulations? ^ Yes ^ No c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c){2) of the NFIP regulations? ^ Yes ^ No If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documerdation. 11. Maintenance Plan a. Are the plannedlnstalled works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations? ^ Yes ^ No If No, please attach supporting doaxnentatlon. 12. Ooeretions and Maintenance Plan Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall. F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Flooding Souroe: Name of Structure: If there is any indication from historical records that sediment transport (inducting scour and deposition) can affect the Base Flood Elevation (BFE ); and/or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, developmer~ of the watershed end bank conditions, there is e potential for debris and sedimerd transport {inducting scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the following information along with the supporting documentation: Sediment load assodeted with the base Aood discharge: Volume acre-feet Debris load assodated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet Sediment transport rate (peroent concentration by volume) Method used to estimate sediment transport: Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sedment saes; attach a detailed explanation for using the selected method. Method used to estimate scour and/or deposition: Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrologic analysis (model) to account for sediment transport: Please note that bulked Aows are used to evaluate the pertormance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based on bulked Aows. If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport {inducting scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs or structures must be provided. DHS -FEMA Form 81-896, FEB O6 Riverine Structures Fore MT-2 Form 3 Page 10 of 10 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL LETTER Of MAP REVISION AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BILLINGSLEY TRACT, IRVING, TEXAS Appendix A Figures and Maps REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL LETTER Of MAP REVISION AND FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BILLINGSLEY TRACT, IRVING, TEXAS Figure 1 -Location Map Figure 2 - FEMA FIRM Map • I ' , - • Le • -- - - �, _ - SO:, RO D � � ' , Ill � �� So ' a o p -l1 ' lePark '' ' \ S {, 3649 A �� - � Trai it P alk — �� Srr — _, r n , o �eth�l / I! i21 I I` t � ( • -z O �• • i 1 .` )648 } \ ' \ \ !, © � s 9 ._ *_*---,..,._,_____• C MID SidbsId / ;7/C / ‘-. _ _ _ C :5 I a 'rt c wAr v � ! 1•• l • `, I� PROJECT SITE \ \\ t' � G I; Coppeli -- • Y SCh Radio � T-' ' 36 47 t! ��� ; '� ' -, Tower psi s II 1 )) t i I ROAD Radio'1 `''..o I ?Tower - (01 1 ELt CI BD.{ .\ 0 R T H L :1 k E / -- 1 q � z ? � ) ` 'i w ` it `_ I /, / >" • \ .'\\ / T _/ � ��/)\ / ,) vw \::�� I �� II �� L II I I I \ I l II u u ll f � , a j I) I Il ) I a i N , � La Par - _ �I ) x64 r . , I1 l - - 1 - DlIL.1i , CITY RIi1 ARA =, l - _ — •�� _—c_ - - _ 1 r r ,... _ • � I ; i6 T - ,_)` r 5E - - i FIG 1 = Location Map (Refer to Dallas Mapsco 11A and 11B) - Scale 1" = 2,000' m o- (IT 8 9 ..c •ct i o w = /1. 2 4, 7- r= .-- g -cc •-..' l- = w Z ri-1 T i MI ''' ••=r _J A -' v, ,....., — - .... -40....-:-... Lu = - — E-86 w 2 ¢ * — I= t t•14• ::: Zi '4, ,--- r - 7...' t R ' 1 i i „ a g = CC = t ,. ,--- a. - 7 ;',' 2 't „; •,;*, ': (2 --] — 0 z t ? c '''i" >1 :', 7 ..., fl ,, a ..,:,:, ILL 0 --------1 - S - •• 1 ' .- 5 1 1 ' t ' ' . "7", 1 ':: :2 •.: I , I I 4 .i:.'::131',.•J 3 ;c. '. Li i f ,1,-: in 1 is' 6 . „ ....:..a.t: ''' al < N : -...., ' I " .1.: ,......,_, ti... -: 0 Z 4 ' .. ‘,.::,::$•.:-.. 0 •;i, :; rzljg i N : . ,z- i ,-.., _ t.,., - .--' ra ....._ .1 1 i 1 .--. . 0.. c... ■ 1- I ---- 2 z . . 1 - / ' 9, .., 3 - ._ ., , -. .' -.,' 4-',F;u x.i >:: ;re,: 4s i ' ' Y • '",§-. . . _ - E : i :. ,;, - .r, 1.*-114 7.,7. ',.., • •".....11/4 . `,....1..„ '• './.. -.-- 1 ' 1 ;.'• ''' , '' • C ' ' N . - . CO 2-: eu .. C- i "S, 1,4 — -. is .o ..-, ::';‘ .. :-• " V 4., V. Q... ;,,..., 5 5 5 cc C t 1 • '4-'4: ., :glieli.lzieg , ": - .%:, , i"?.• ' ' , w ' ` ' c H a• x 0 ) '..., 4 x7i '# ',' ; ;P:1 "--,,,'''..,..., ...."4* ' , . > • - , ft:,...,,,t4..41 , 4 , v ,, ..,,,, :.. i .: ..v. •. : - C.) 'i. i .f.', , " *:- - :,' . 4,,,. ' , -72 z z c ;-_ 0 0 ,..1 ,...1 ; .', v . . 7. - ;,.‘ • ' , t, ,,;. ', 4.1% 1"..e4 r &1f;2" „,," ,.... , 1- „„,o, i. 4 :1 ,, ... , • ' - - . , ;(P , ".".: 5:. , 3,.: - .! . ..,.1%.': -it .;•t 'MI. 1 kt...' ......,-.."' ....,'..• ... .•'. , , 1,7 .....i. 4 ,e' .., ..+- :' Z., • ,,,:iiiif / :,:',.....,,;:,.. '. qz'• , :..." 1 '.FZ ' : .5 4 ‘ 44 ,40 ., 4' ...' ,9 ‘ . ‘ ..7' '.c.` r .= • • :, -••:!,, •`,.4 'N, ../.;;,,, i- i rii 1 (..---___ ; ... ',,.. X ' " ': '1,c, ;' :•■;U..i. ' i 4 .' '' '' 7 ..„,44,1"; L_ _ . o. 00 1 , ri. : . . Vi : ...". *• .:3 . V1- . '. ' -i '"? C ; L i . 7.1 (5) .1 '',”.. :34 , ..; , v..gi : • , -4. :•,:'..5.,;::: -,:. -7, 5 , '5 2 ,', C/.') ' le: ' J. • •=';if,•:2• 4 .. , '` •• '."4 _ -.'.,- .. 7 :7: 4 '4 A ""-: •?.. -- ... , 4 fe • .. ...._.1 ' _..,..,•, < , 2 .2.• •E ', z ' c ... -2 , ri,': ..a ';,, 7-' ° z : 1 -: : : •-, 1: .':,:- ,,,..0 1 „:,,;...:.:.•,-;); -. , r . j -7, -2 •., -5 tr, - . _ ...,.........'!........iff•":..e.it';.7.1.---17,.,..5' :..Y. Z 2 = 7 ," -" (. . ".-•3..: :.4 1 , . '''' g !.,...;-;;:',‘'. ■, - 3: ,-.. u i t t l a _, .._ ... - __, , .., X _ J _L.:: . 4f.; • - ' 0 s _, .. \ UJ (;,.rt.;3F,?:.1;k:fir2N -- -, 2 Z ,., ' ' 1 (P C-) s Z ,-,:...... :,,.:: -..f,cp-: :Yw:14f ,.f.4:,..;,...?:•-•7::,:•k`".;,..;. --'• - 0 0 - ' N , C.7,• 0 .;r:` ‘,., ... „ P,, , ...,:)..Z..:...,t,..•,;x 4: ....... g.;.,, .,......” tii uy II- N -- --t -. ' ':;fs''.'-i.-'"0."-;:',:-L f P , :' .. .i. 1- '-';':' ,. .: , ' .:::' , •••4i0 , 1" , .'..j'.• ' '''''=• ' '' ' - ,"3*; ; ''''.. :.--;-_,,! ..;.•:,,,, ., :,;,;;., -:.:, , 4.iiii;f : LU 1 -...' " ' ''''''' ' ' , ,r , .:';;':' A. t . ;/,;),. ' :i 7 ; . ? . : ' ....; . ..1 : 5,..&Z..j.. , : '. 4 , ,, ' ff: ' ,..14-'? ::: ',.;,'.,.,..‘.,, : 'f'...: N. 4 ,',■,;■,,,' ''' ,? i:ei• 4 1- , ..?.. e ,■:.,1 , Z,4' .. . :, • '''',.':•:' ,;;;;$...q ir1 z ,.. ,: j ....... , , , . ■ • , ! ,?,.. , ., „ . ,,...e.,,,, - t , 0 1 .... ,--:-,::, ,, 4 , , ,,,, A .- - .,, !..;:... , ., ..,,?' -?,,,„ k .,. .,7 ; „•••• \ 40 \ N 1 ''% -- ..'" ,- .R. , , , ,. , : , •••••••'•% ,, •■%',Kf,!•!•,,:',.:::: , •••••••-,,,, , A ..c. ..: s. ... . . S. ‘ Figure 4 - Revised Floodplain and Floodway Delineations Map Figure 5 - Revised Multiple Flood Profiles Map Figure 6 - Revised Floodplain Delineations Map -- Ultimate Conditions O a z F- w W LL Z 2 a W J W 410 465 460 455 450 445 440 435 430 425 y . ... v _ m ,.. _ ;':.:. .o 4 .. ., .. .~ ~ .. _ .. ~. ~ d- : ~ . _ _ ,_. ~. ~. .~ t 1 - - .. - - _ , -- - r, ~ , m F ._ I F -?- I I ~`K ~Xy -- _ - - ~ '. : '' - I ' -- - r-f _ ; - - .., _ _ _._._. I ~~ _ ~L~ -'---- r-- _ -- -r-~ -~-~-ter -,-. , ~_~ . __~~t, ~r _ ~ -'T I _ -- ~ - 'y ~r ~ ~ ~ I - , l. , I ~ 1 ~ ~~ - ~ ---~-r-~- _ _----. ; T ~ ~ i 1 - , ~ - - - T I ~ r - - ~-rIr r~, ~ ~,- ~ - i i I i~ - ~~ _ I _ _ ~ - I , ~ .l ~ r _Y +~ ~ - '. ~. I ~ -- - 1 ~ _ I 'I _ . _ /~-~ -r-.,.u J - - - ~_~J--.-. ~ f I i I ~ : 1 1 ~ I i ~ , . . ~ I I I I I I I _ I I T^'T' ~ - - - I I - - . ' I - . - ~r ,-_-,--r-1--- +~~ T . ~ i r r ~__._:_ , ~_ ', ~, I -' -?-;~/}_r - _. :-': ' -++ ~~ ter- - T 1-~--•-~-~ -r- --~-~~ 1 I 1 I i u ~ 'ter ~ _ __ :.: _._. ~ _~ -. .-_ _ ~Y _a--._. ~r ,- -~-+ 'tom-+-`-~' - ~ - - ~ TI ~'- i ~ I I - _ . - - - - ! -- --a ;, ~ _ -; y .- ' ~~ -- -t-. i - ~ . -«-+- _ L r i 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET 14500 15000 LEGEND -~-OZ% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD -------1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD -----2% ANNUAL CHANCE F100D --------10%ANNUAI CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED CROSS SECTION LOCATION I59uu ~ tiu00 i b5uu 470 465 460 455 450 445 440 435 17000 ~ Y W W _J W O v W n. z W ^ ~ O ~ O ~ J CD LL V Z W c~ a I- W W Q = z O ~ a ~ V o c ° ~ CA a ~ a ~ Z J V W J ~ a Z - W ^ Z ~ a W J a W a FIB F , , " <> " , .....,........",...""........ '" Hydraulics Cross Section with Revised Section Segment ----- Original Hydraulics Cross Section mm~ @ ~)X?0w. "" *'~~:;:." .. Existing 1 OO-yr Floodplain Ultimate ------ Proposed lOO-yr Floodplain Ultimate (CLOMR) I I I / ~OJECT BENCHMARKS (SET BY HAlFF ASSOCIATES) A+1IlO II CUT ON INLET '7034087.8966 '2441079.6408 .-452.17 )CATED ON TOP OF EXIST. CONC. CURB INLET 'PROX. 760'WEST OF MACARTHUR BLVD :NTERlINE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BELT LINE RD. " , , ~+2 II 0" CUT ON INLET '7034104.9428 2440816.7226 -454.12 fCATED ON TOP OF EXIST. CONC. CURB INLET 'PROX. 1030' WEST OF MACARTHUR BLVD. NTERlINE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BELT LINE RD. Y OF COPPEll GPS CONTROL MONUMENTS '.S. PT. +3 <Bl03), El-473.96 6., 61+30.32, RT. 112.70' 7034836.7846 ~436044.1301 _OCATED ON THE TOP SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EXISTING CONC. INLET ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF :>RE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 26.70 FEET NORTH THE NORTH R.O.W. OF BEL TlINE ROAD. .S. PT. +5 (BL05), EL=462.13 \ 88+21.06, LT. 88.38' '034711.4419 438725.1548 .OCATED 18.29 FEET EAST OF THE EXISTING CENTER OF MOCKINGBIRD lANE AND 15.38 FEET NORTH OF EXISTING NORTHERLY R.O.W. LINE OF BEL TlINE ROAD. .S. PT. +7 (Bl07), EL-449.16 \ 119+68.31, RT. 8.38' 034099.2239 441777.4077 OCATED 13.98 FEET WESTERLY OF THE PROJECTED )T R.O.W. LINE OF MacARTHUR BLVD. AND 8.38 FEET :TH OF THE NEW CENTERLINE OF BEL TlINE ROAD. \~ G.P.S. POINTS ARE SET AS 3" AlUMINUM DISKS, MPED, BL03,05 OR 07 " -------------------------------- / / / ...(.) " , / ",:'>../ " / / /' , " /' " /' " , '" / " / / / /' , ( , / " " " / ..."'...... ..,v.. F#~//" " ,/",;/;;d"N"- ..~;/j/"-' " ), N" ..'-'" " ( : / " " ( \ ~, / '/ 'N , ' , , / ,9' " / >', / , , , / " /.' / " ( " , , / " ';, / / " / " " / , " " , " , " / / ( ; , ,N' ....I>VN.""" No"... NW'-"^".."""'''''........,.,''>''''v# / ~" .~ / / " / N o I 100 200 300 400 600 I SCALE IN FEET 1"-200' / , " \. ~ ~ / ' , ^ CJ CL -+- C\ 'v' .,... c. C rJ. rJ. ~ ~ " J C\: ~ -II o [ __I ../ / Project No; Issued; SEP I I Revisions, No. Date Drawn by; Checked by: Sheet Title FLOODPLJ 100- YEAR L Sheet Number / ,-' / N " " o I 100 200 300 400 GOO I I- U UJ J o 0: a.. (f) - u.. "'''''' -~ ..., -' SCALE IN FEET 1"-200' , , / u " " z Q~ ~tlJ ~a: <(u -Jw f:rlz a:s: UJ a.. <( a: (.9 z - ::s a.. o o o -J u.. / / , ~ " / / / ( / " / , I " / ' " ' / / , / ( ;"/ / / / ~.,^{ /r . U o ~ ~ / LEGEND: .. rJJ C) ~ cd .~ U o rJJ rJJ ~ 14170 Hydraulics Cross Section with Revised Section Segment Original Hydraulics Cross Section Existing Floodway (FIRM) Existing FIS 100-yr Floodplain (FIRM) ~ r ~ cd ~ ---~ Proposed FIS lOOyr Floodplain (CLOMR) ROJECT BENCHMARKS (SET BY HAlFF ASSOCIATES) M+1 "0 II CUT ON INLET -7034087.8966 "2441079.6408 L-452.17 OCATED ON TOP OF EXIST. CONC. CURB INLET PPROX. 760'WEST OF MACARTHUR BLVD ENTERLINE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BELT LINE RD. ... 0.[ ... M+2 II 0" CUT ON INLET .. 7034104.9428 -2440816.7226 L-454.12 OCATED ON TOP OF EXIST. CONC. CURB INLET PPROX. 1030' WEST OF MACARTHUR BLVD. ENTERLINE ON SOUTH SIDE OF BELT LINE RD. / / / 7 '\ ~.... "'.. } / ..'/ ~.P.S. PT. +5 (BL05), EL-462.13 ;TA 88+21.06, LT. 88.381 J.. 7034 711. 4419 : -2438725.1548 LOCATED 18.29 FEET EAST OF THE EXISTING CENTER .INE OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND 15.38 FEET NORTH OF fHE EXISTING NORTHERLY R.O.W. LINE OF BEL TLlNE ROAD. ....""''' Project No: Issued: SEF Revisions. No. Date Drawn by: Checked by: Sheet Title FLO FLOODV\ Sheet Number :ITY OF COPPELL GPS CONTROL MONUMENTS / / :/ ~.P.S. PT. +3 (BL03), EL"473.96 ;T A 61+30.32, RT. 112.701 I- 7034836. 7846 :-2436044.1301 LOCATED ON THE TOP SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF \N EXISTING CONC. INLET ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF mORE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 26.70 FEET NORTH )F THE NORTH R.O.W. OF BEL TLlNE ROAD. / N./ / / ~.P.S. PT. +7 <BL07), EL-449.16 :iTA 119+68.31, RT. 8.38' ~.. 7034099.2239 ::-2441777.4077 LOCATED 13.98 FEET WESTERLY OF THE PROJECTED NEST R.O.W. LINE OF MacARTHUR BLVD. AND 8.38 FEET ~ORTH OF THE NEW CENTERLINE OF BEL TLlNE ROAD. -., " ... - ",,,, ,,/' //...... ;,,< ....,N t.LL G.P.S. POINTS ARE SET AS 3" ALUMINUM DISKS, 3TAMPED,BL03,05 OR 07 / / ( / -M""V"-' '^"""'Vy........."" l:\23000s\2318G\dgn\West Cell\18E -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------