ST9905-PR040408
MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION
OF TRIBUTARY G-l FROM FREEPORT
PARKWAY THROUGH COPPELL RD. SOUTH
IN COPPELL, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Applicant: City of Coppell, Texas
Prepared by Loretta Mokry
ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC.
April 8, 2004
Mitigation Plan for Modifications to Tributary G-l from Freeport Parkway through
Coppell Road South within City of Coppell, Texas
USACE Project No.: 200400xxx
INTRODUCTION
The channel of Tributary G-l lies within a 60' wide drainage easement from Freeport Parkway
eastward then turning northward and crossing under Bethel Road then turning eastward again
and crossing under Coppell Road South within the City of Coppell, Texas. This stream then
continues eastward through Hunterwood Park, a linear park along the tributary, which is
surrounded by established residential developments. The increase in impervious area resulting
from past urban development and collection and discharge of drainage from culverts has
produced a flashy flow resulting from rapid runoff from rooftops and parking lots. As a result, a
defined channel has headcut from the historical location shown on the U.S.G.S topographic
quadrangle (Grapevine) as starting at Bethel Road upwards to Freeport Road. The existing
channel upstream of Bethel Road consists of an eroded, degraded channel within a narrow
riparian corridor dominated by black willow (Salix nigra), eastern cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida).
Downstream of Bethel Road, two residences bordering the tributary along the west bank are
endangered by severe erosion. A wooden footbridge crosses the tributary at a third residence
then the channel turns eastward toward Coppell Road South. The narrow riparian corridor in this
reach is dominated by Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sugar hackberry (Celtis
laevigata) with some green ash and an understory of Chinese ligustrum (Ligustrum sinense) and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Scattered pecan trees are located on edge of the
riparian corridor on the south side of the channel west of Coppell Road South. A large pecan
tree (approximately 36-inch diameter) and several smaller pecan trees are also located along the
tributary channel east of Coppell Road South.
The drainage basin for Tributary G-l above Coppell Road South has been the subject of
numerous studies since the early 1990s. The drainage basin for this tributary, which parallels the
western portion of Bethel Road, includes approximately 242 acres of DFW airport property
discharging into Bethel Road at Royal Lane. The drainage basin is currently comprised of
several land uses including Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Residential. The existing
industrial uses are comprised of the USPS, Minyards, and Koll Development south of Bethel
Road and Trade Point and Duke Freeport north of Bethel Road. Residential development begins
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
approximately 700 feet upstream from Coppell Road and continues downstream of Coppell Road
to the end of the proposed project site. In total, the drainage basin above Coppell Road includes
676 acres of land that discharges storm runoff into the drainage along Bethel Road near Coppell
Road. A drainage study was commissioned by the City of Coppell called the "Southwest
Coppell Storm Water Management Master Plan." This was a joint venture between the City of
Coppell, NCH and Coppell Industrial NV. Halff and Associates prepared a study which was
completed in 1999. The study pointed to the fact that detention would be required on the land
north of Bethel Road and on the airport property. The detention on the airport property was
crucial because of the short distance from Royal Lane to Freeport Parkway and the fact that there
was no available land in that section for detention.
In 2001, the City of Coppell entered into a design contract with TranSystems Corporation for the
design of Bethel Road from the west city limits to Freeport Parkway. The design contract was
structured so that there would be additional drainage studies to complement the previous
drainage study. The study results, documented in a report dated December 20, 2002, also
pointed to the fact that detention would be required. Two large properties within the city limits
of Coppell north of Bethel Road were developed subsequent to the 1999 study and in both cases
the City of Coppell required detention that would not allow the discharge of any additional water
from the site than what would normally discharge in an undeveloped condition. Also, runoff
from the two tracts was conveyed in an easterly direction and discharged into Grapevine Creek
north of Loch Lane, not directly into tributary G 1.
TranSystems provided two drainage studies for the City of Coppell to accommodate the drainage
along Bethel Road. Both studies showed that detention would be required on the airport property
to detain the increase in water runoff when the 242 acres of airport property develops. Two
detention ponds strategically located on the airport property generally along the west side of
Royal Lane were proposed.
Subdivision Ordinance No. 94-643 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coppell Appendix C
Design Criteria and Standards, Section II Storm Sewers and Drainage, paragraph B Engineering
Design requires that all drainage systems be designed to accommodate the flow from the 100-
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\loretta\My Documents\OFFICE\816\0201\Tributary 01 Mit Plan.doc
Page 3
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, CoppeU, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
year frequency storm. Designing for the 100-year fully developed storm is the criteria which has
been utilized, with few exceptions, in the City of Coppell since approximately 1990. However,
the engineering staff at the City of Coppell recognized the potential effect that the design of a
drainage system to accommodate the 100-year ultimate developed runoff along Bethel Road
would have for downstream portions of tributary Gland Grapevine Creek. Erosion problems
have already been noted along a portion of the tributary through the residential areas of Big
Cedar and Country Estates and evidence of erosion was noted in Hunterwood Park. The goal of
the drainage design was to detain the increased runoff difference between the undeveloped
airport land as it exists today and the future developed airport land. Meetings and discussions
between the City of Coppell staff and the DFW Airport representatives were held for more than
three years regarding the proposed plan for the provision of detention on the airport property.
The City of Coppell was informed in October 2002 that representatives of DFW Airport would
not commit to any detention now or in the future. As a result, the City of Coppell requested that
TranSystems evaluate the proposed design for the Bethel Road drainage system as if no
detention was provided by DFW Airport when they developed to determine the capacity of the
proposed drainage system as well as with the existing level of development. Evaluation of the
proposed system indicated that the system would convey approximately 25-year storm flow with
ultimate development without detention on the airport property. City Staff recommended to City
Council that a variance to Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances be granted for the proposed
project. The variance was approved by the City Council in December 2002. Copies of
correspondence detailing the meetings and conversation with representatives of DFW Airport,
the supplemental evaluation of the capacity of the proposed drainage design, and the request for
variance from the City Council is included in Appendix A. Figures B-1 through B-1? including
project location map, vicinity map from the USGS topographic quadrangle (Grapevine), 2001
aerial photograph of project site, and exhibits of the proposed design for the modified channel
(plan, profile, and cross-sections) are included in Appendix B.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\loretta\My Documents\OFFICE\8I6\020I\Tributary 01 Mit PIan.doc
Page 4
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-1 - Coppell, TX
MITIGATION PLAN
1a. A voidance and Minimization
The proposed modifications to Tributary G-l are needed to accommodate drainage from
developed and developing urban areas upstream of the Bethel Road crossing. City ordinance
requires detention facilities for recent developments within the drainage basin to restrict flows
from developed land to pre-development runoff volumes. However, a significant portion of the
drainage area is within property owned by the DFW Airport and lies outside the City of
Coppell's jurisdiction. Attempts to get a commitment from DFW representatives for installation
of detention facilities in conjunction with development of this area have not been successful.
Requesting and being granted a variance to the City's ordinance requiring drainage capacity to
accommodate the lOO-year ultimate developed runoff along Bethel Road achieved minimization
of impacts that would have resulted from further increasing the drainage capacity of Tributary G-
I upstream of Coppell Road and Bethel Road. The reduction of design criteria for drainage
capacity and requirement for detention within the upstream drainage area (where possible)
results in minimization of impacts to downstream reaches of Tributary G-I and Grapevine Creek.
The reduction in design criteria also reduces the overall width of impact for the modified channel
so that high quality hard mast trees (pecans) within the riparian corridor may be preserved.
The employment of open channel design for the modified channel with bioengineering
techniques enables mitigation of existing functions within this headwater stream on-site. The
preferred alternative will provide a higher-level functioning stream environment than the existing
degraded natural channel as well as provide protection from flooding and erosion of adjacent
private properties and increased traffic safety on Bethel Road and Coppell Road by facilitating
drainage from these roadways.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary 01 Mit Plan.doc
Page 5
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-I - Coppell, TX
lb. Alternatives Analysis
Alternative I - No Action Alternative
To accommodate drainage resulting from urban development within the drainage basin of
Tributary 0-1 upstream of Coppell Road South, several measures have been employed. These
include the requirement for development of onsite stormwater detention facilities for
developments that have occurred since 1991. However, on site detention facilities are not
sufficient to manage or convey drainage from this urbanized drainage basin without further
degradation of the existing tributary channel and potential flooding of roadways and private
property. Currently, erosion along the channel downstream of Bethel Road imperils the
structural integrity of two private residences. The City of Coppell has a responsibility to manage
storm water appropriately to protect the safety of its citizens and investments in public and
private property. Therefore, the "no action alternative" is not considered a viable alternative by
the City of Coppell.
Alternative 2 - Upe:raded Box Culverts and Concrete Lined Open Channel (from Final
Drainae:e Report for Ree:ional Detention AnalvsislBethel Road Improvements prepared by
TranSvstems Corporation. December 20. 2002)
This alternative provides for improvements to accommodate proposed development within
drainage basin 0-1 utilizing the existing detention facilities (north of Bethel Road) and detention
storage in the upper reaches of the drainage basin (DFW property) including an upgrade to the
10' x 5' box culvert along the Minyard property.
. Construction of two detention ponds (16.9 ac-ft and 46.3 ac-ft) within the DFW property
at a cost of $1,073,000.
. Improved storm drainage system for the proposed Bethel Road widening at a cost of
$377,260.
. Upgrading the currently undersized 10' x 5' box culvert between Freeport Parkway and
the USPS channel to add 3-2,040 linear feet of 10' x 5' box culverts along with
realigning approximately 140 linear feet of existing culvert at a cost of $2,480,679.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 6
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
. Re-configuration of the existing channel between Freeport Parkway to Bethel Road to a
32' wide bottom, 1: 1 side slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel, at a cost of $488,400.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Bethel Road to accommodate upstream development by
placing 4-10' x 7' box culverts at a cost of $81,477.
. Upgrade and reconfigure the existing channel from Bethel Road to Coppell Road to a 32'
wide bottom, 1: 1 side slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel, at a cost of $352,930.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Coppell Road to 4-10' x 8' box culverts at a cost of
$148,074.
. Reconfigure Tributary G-l downstream of Coppell Road to a 32' wide bottom, 3:1 side
slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel, at a cost of $108,050.
The total cost of Alternative 2 (in 2002 dollars) is estimated to be $5,109,870 plus 15%
contingency = $5,876,351. The projected cost were prepared as part of an engineering study and
do not include costs for off-site mitigation. The proposed design of replacement box culverts
followed by concrete-lined trapezoidal channel severely limits opportunity for on-site mitigation.
Alternative 3 - Concrete Lined Open Channel (from Final Draina2e Report for Re2ional
Detention AnalvsislBethel Road Improvements prepared bv TranSvstems Corporation.
December 20. 2002)
This alternative provides for improvements to accommodate proposed development within
drainage basin G-l utilizing the existing detention facilities (north of Bethel Road) and detention
storage in the upper reaches of the drainage basin (DFW property) including an upgrade of the
10' x 5' box culvert along the Minyard property to a trapezoidal concrete lined channel.
. Construction of two detention ponds (16.9 ac-ft and 46.3 ac-ft) within the DFW property
at a cost of $1,073,000 (identical to alternative 2).
. Improved storm drainage system for the proposed Bethel Road widening at a cost of
$377,260 (identical to alternative 2).
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioretta\My Documents\OFFICE\816\0201 \Tributary G 1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 7
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
. Upgrading the currently undersized 10' x 5' box culvert between Freeport Parkway and
the USPS channel to a 32' wide bottom, 3"1 side slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel at
a cost of $1,333,306.
. Reconfiguration of the existing channel between Freeport Parkway to Bethel Road to a
32' wide bottom, 1: 1 side slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel at a cost of $488,400.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Bethel Road to accommodate upstream development by
placing 4-10' x 7' box culverts at a cost of $81,477.
. Upgrade and reconfigure the existing channel from Bethel Road to Coppell Road to a 32'
wide bottom, 1: 1 side slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel at a cost of $352,930.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Coppell Road to 4-10' x 8' box culverts at a cost of
$148,074.
. Reconfigure Stream G-l downstream of Coppell Road to a 32' wide bottom, 3: 1 side
slope, 6' deep concrete lined channel at a cost of $108,050.
The total cost of alternative 3 is estimated to be $3,962,497 plus 15% contingency = $4,556,872.
The projected cost were prepared as part of an engineering study and do not include costs for off-
site mitigation. The proposed design of a concrete-lined trapezoidal channel severely limits
opportunity for on-site mitigation.
Alternative 4 - Precast Stone Lined Open Channel (from Final Draina2e Report for
Re2ional Detention AnalvsislBethel Road Improvements prepared bv TranSvstems
Corporation. December 20. 2002)
This alternative provides for improvements to accommodate proposed development within
drainage basin G-l utilizing the existing detention facilities (north of Bethel Road) and detention
storage in the upper reaches of the drainage basin (DFW property) including an upgrade of the
10' x 5' box culvert along the Minyard property to a precast stone lined concrete channel.
. Construction of two detention ponds (16.9 ac-ft and 46.3 ac-ft) within the DFW property
at a cost of $1,073,000 (identical to alternatives 2 and 3).
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioretta\My Documents\OFFICE\8I 6\0201\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 8
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
. Improved storm drainage system for the proposed Bethel Road widening at a cost of
$377,260 (identical to alternatives 2 and 3).
. Upgrading the currently undersized 10' x 5' box culvert between Freeport Parkway and
the USPS channel to a 40' wide by 7' deep precast stone lined channel at a cost of
$1,214,906.
. Reconfiguration of the existing channel between Freeport Parkway to Bethel Road to a
40' wide by 7' deep precast stone lined channel at a cost of $534,900.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Bethel Road to accommodate upstream development by
placing 4-10' x 7' box culverts at a cost of $81,477.
. Upgrade and reconfigure the existing channel from Bethel Road to Coppell Road to a 40'
wide by 7' deep pavestone lined channel at a cost of $352,430.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Coppell Road to 4-10' x 8' box culverts at a cost of
$148,074.
. Reconfigure Stream G-l downstream of Coppell Road to a 40' wide by 7' deep
pavestone lined channel at a cost of $113,050.
The total cost of alternative 4 is estimated to be $3,895,097 plus 15% contingency = $4,479,362.
The projected cost were prepared as part of an engineering study and do not include costs for off-
site mitigation. The proposed design of a stone-lined trapezoidal channel limits opportunity for
on-site mitigation.
Alternative 5 - Preferred Alternative - Earthen Channel with Gabion Reinforced Slopes
This alternative provides for improvements to accommodate proposed development within
drainage basin G-l utilizing the existing detention facilities (north of Bethel Road) and detention
storage in the upper reaches of the drainage basin (DFW property) including including an
upgrade of the 10' x 5' box culvert along the Minyard property to a precast stone lined concrete
channel and modification of the approximately 1900 linear feet of existing Tributary G-l channel
from Freeport Parkway through approximately 300 feet downstream of Coppell Road South to a
32' -wide bottom width channel with meandering 5' -wide base-flow channel and constructed
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\1oretta\My Documents\OFFICE\8 1 6\0201 \Tributary G 1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 9
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
gabion protected slopes at a I: I side slope with an overall top width of 44 feet. Native
herbaceous vegetation would be planted in the channel bottom along the base-flow channel and
native canopy trees, small trees and shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation would be planted along
the top of bank within the 60'-wide drainage right-of-way.
. Construction of two detention ponds (16.9 ac-ft and 46.3 ac-ft) within the DFW property
at a cost of $1,073,000 (identical to alternatives 2, 3 and 4).
. Improved storm drainage system for the proposed Bethel Road widening at a cost of
$377,260 (identical to alternatives 2,3 and 4).
. Upgrading the currently undersized 10' x 5' box culvert between Freeport Parkway and
the USPS channel to add 3-2,040 linear feet of 10' x 5' box culverts along with
realigning approximately 140 linear feet of existing culvert at a cost of $2,480,679.
. Reconfigure the existing channel between Freeport Parkway to Bethel Road to a 6' deep,
35' -wide bottom width channel with meandering 5' -wide base-flow channel and
constructed I: I stepped side gabion protected slopes with an overall top width of 50 feet
at a cost of $466,420.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Bethel Road to accommodate upstream development by
placing 4-10' x 7' box culverts at a cost of $81,477.
. Reconfigure of the existing channel between Bethel Road to Coppell Road South to a 6'
deep, 35' -wide bottom width channel with meandering 5' -wide base-flow channel and
constructed I: I stepped side gabion protected slopes with an overall top width of 50 feet
at a cost of $299,842.
. Upgrade the existing crossing of Coppell Road to 4-10' x 8' box culverts and reconfigure
Tributary G-l downstream of Coppell Road to provide a transition from the reconfigured
50' -wide channel with 1: I stepped side gabion protected slopes to the natural earthen
channel at a cost of $148,074
. Plant native herbaceous species along the channel bottom and native canopy trees, small
trees and shrubs, and herbaceous species along the banks of the modified channel at a
cost of $21,961.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\loretta\My Documents\OFFICE\8l6\0201\Tributary G1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 10
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
The total cost of alternative 5 is estimated to be $4,948,713 plus 15% contingency = $5,691,020.
The proposed design of gabion-reinforced side slopes with earthen bottom provides opportunity
for on-site mitigation. Plan, profile, and typical cross-section views of the preferred design
alternative are included as Figures 4 through 17 in Appendix B.
2. Impacts of the Proposed Project
The impacts of the proposed project are limited to the tributary channel segments to be modified,
which totals approximately 1,900 linear feet. The requirement for detention basins within the
drainage basin and limiting design criteria for the modifications to conveyance of the runoff from
the 25-year frequency storm event maintains pre-development runoff volumes and minimizes the
potential for increases in flow velocity. Therefore, the downstream reaches of Tributary G-1 and
Grapevine Creek will not be subjected to potential increases in erosion rates as a result of the
proposed project.
Within the tributary channel segments to be modified, existing vegetation as well as accumulated
debris and sediment within the channel will be removed during excavation to enlarge and
reshape the channel. However, several large pecan trees that are located within the riparian
corridor along the downstream portion of the project area will be protected and preserved.
3. Goals and Objectives of the Mitigation Plan
The goal of the mitigation plan is to replace functions lost as a result of impacts from the
proposed modification and enhance the functions of the modified tributary channel so that
aquatic resources downstream are protected from further degradation.
A list of qualitatively and/or quantitatively measurable outcomes of the proposed mitigation plan
that can be used to demonstrate that its goal is being achieved includes, but is not limited to the
following:
1. Maintain storm runoff capacity to protect public and private properties along the tributary
channel.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\8l6\0201\Word\Tributary G1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 11
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
2. Foster continued stream conveyance within a channel with a vegetated earthen bottom
and contiguous riparian corridor.
3. Increase species diversity with an increase in species that provide high-quality habitat,
aesthetics, erosion control, and water quality improvement.
4. Provide a riparian buffer to filter runoff from the adjacent urban areas.
5. Maintain detention time to prevent increased potential for erosion downstream as a result
of the proposed project.
4. Description of the Mitigation Area
The proposed mitigation area is within the 60' drainage easement through which Tributary G-l
flows from Freeport Parkway through downstream of Coppell Road South. The drainage basin
within the proposed project area comprises approximately 676 acres with several land uses
including Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Residential. Storm runoff from the developing
urban area has resulted in head cutting of this ephemeral tributary from the culvert discharge at
Freeport Parkway as well as severe erosion along the reach of the tributary channel downstream
of Bethel Road.
5. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc. conducted a preliminary determination of jurisdictional
waters of the United States (U.S.) for the project site. A report documenting the survey, dated 26
November 2003, is included in Appendix C. The conclusion of the survey was that the only
potential jurisdictional water of the U.S. was the single unnamed ephemeral channel (Tributary
G-l) to Grapevine Creek, which was approximately 1,723 linear feet (to Coppell Road South)
and averaged between 2 and 10 feet wide at the OHWM (0.222 acres total).
6. Compensatory Mitigation Activities
Several enhancements are proposed along the modified channel reach of Tributary G-l to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts as a result of the proposed project.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projecls\816\0201\Word\Tributary 01 Mil Plan.doc
Page 12
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
The enhancements include the establishment of native herbaceous species to stabilize the bottom
width of the overall modified channel and the meandering base-flow channel which will be
constructed within the channel bottom. The proposed mixture of native grasses, legumes, and
wildflowers will also provide filtration of flows for water quality improvement, flow attenuation
and dissipation of erosive storm flow velocities, and some habitat functions for wildlife. In
addition to the herbaceous species to be planted within the channel bottom, a variety of native
canopy trees, small trees and shrubs, and a mixture of herbaceous species will be planted along
the top of the stream banks to reestablish a riparian corridor with increased diversity and quality
of food sources for wildlife as well as provide long-term stability of the stream channel. The
established riparian corridor will also provide an aesthetically pleasing vegetative screen of
adjacent industrial areas. A more detailed discussion of the mitigation vegetation to be planted
along the modified segments of Tributary G-l can be found in Section 11.
7. Liens and Encumbrances
The length of Tributary G 1 within the project site and immediately downstream of the project
site to Hunterwood Park currently lies within a 60-feet wide drainage easement to the City of
Coppell. There are no known liens or encumbrances existing that will affect the proposed
mitigation area. The City of Coppell will purchase a drainage right-of-way for the project area to
be able to provide appropriate deed restriction for the mitigation area.
8. Protective Actions
Multiple actions will be taken during construction to protect water quality within Tributary G 1
and downstream receiving waters including Grapevine Creek and associated buffer zones
adjacent to the project area. These actions include but are not limited to: confining construction
materials and debris to the construction site; stabilizing disturbed areas at the earliest possible
date with the use of permanent or temporary vegetation, blankets, matting, mulch, or sod;
isolating the project area from downstream segments by using and maintaining sand bag berms,
silt fencing, triangular filter dikes, rock berms, or hay bale dikes below the downstream portion
of the project area; protecting vegetation from unnecessary damage; and performing all proposed
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projecls\816\0201\Word\Tributary 01 Mil Plan. doc
Page 13
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l, Coppell, TX
USACE Project No.: 200400XXX
minimize sediment introduction into downstream reaches including Tributary Gland Grapevine
Creek.
The excavation and construction of the proposed channel will be conducted in two phases. First
excavation of the east/south side of the proposed channel to the subgrade elevation will be
conducted and gabions, box culverts, and headwall installed while conveyance of storm flows is
maintained in the existing undisturbed stream channel to the west/north. The existing stream
channel will be protected from construction activities during this first phase. After completion of
installation of gabion baskets and box culverts on the east/south side, the modified stream
channel will be planted with the permanent vegetation specified in the mitigation plan. Storm
flows will then be routed to the modified side of the proposed stream channel and phase two
construction will begin on the west/north side of the proposed channel. Excavation of the
west/north side of the proposed channel and construction activities for installation of the gabion
baskets, box culverts, and headwall will be isolated from storm flows in the east/south side of the
modified channel. Following completion of construction, the west/north side of the proposed
channel will also be planted with the permanent vegetation specified in the mitigation plan and
flows will be rerouted to a meandering base flow channel in the bottom of the modified channel.
9. Hydrology
9a. Future Hydrology
The future hydrology of the modified channel segment within the project area and downstream
reaches of tributary G 1 will consist of storm runoff from the 700 acre drainage basin above
approximately 200 feet downstream of Coppell Road South. The land uses within the drainage
basin currently include Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Residential with some
undeveloped land areas in the upper watershed, including approximately 242 acres of DFW
Airport property. Future development of these areas may include industrial and/or commercial
properties. Runoff from the existing developed and undeveloped portions of the watershed will
continue to be conveyed through the modified channel in a manner similar to existing conditions
prior to the modification. Depending on whether or not construction of additional detention
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
C:\Documents and Settings\1oretta\My Documents\OFFICE\816\0201\Tributary G1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 14
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
additional detention basins is conducted in conjunction with future development within the DFW
Airport portion of the watershed, storm runoff flows will either be maintained at existing
conditions or increase as the impervious surface area increases.
9b. Flow
The modified channel for Tributary G 1, as designed, will convey the runoff from the existing
drainage basin for resulting flows from up to the lOO-year frequency storm. At ultimate
buildout, if the including DFW Airport property is not developed with additional detention
facilities, the designed channel modifications will have the capacity to convey flows resulting
from up to the 25-year frequency storm. The modified channel is designed with appropriate
armoring to convey these storm runoff flows so that the channel is protected from erosion and
the erosive energies within the storm flows are dissipated to minimize adverse erosive impacts to
the downstream natural reaches of the channel.
10. Substrate
According to the information from the Soil Survey for Dallas County, Texas (United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station), the mapped soil units within the project area consist of clay loam and fine
sandy loam. The soil types are listed in Table 1. A complete description of the mapped soil
series encountered within the proposed project area is included in Appendix D.
TABLE 1: SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROJECT AREA
Map Unit # Soil Series Soil Description
79 Wilson Wilson clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
12 Axtell Axtell fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
Since the proposed project does not involve the use of any supplemental soil and all the
vegetation proposed in the planting plan is native to Dallas County and/or ecoregion 5 (Cross
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 15
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
Timbers and Prairies) and adapted to the existing soil conditions, it is expected that the existing
soil should support all the proposed vegetation listed in the planting plan.
11. Planting Plan
Various species of native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation will be planted to establish a
riparian corridor of native vegetation along and within the modified section of Tributary G 1
channel. These plantings will increase the diversity and quality of food sources within the
riparian corridor area as well as provide slope stabilization, water quality improvement, habitat
for wildlife, and an aesthetically pleasing channel corridor. The plantings include 178 canopy
trees and 340 understory trees and shrubs. A mixture of herbaceous species including native
grasses, legumes, and wildflowers will be planted beneath the tree and shrub species along the
top of the bank. A mixture of selected herbaceous species will also be planted along the
meandering base flow channel within the stream bottom. Table 2 lists the vegetative species to
be planted in the identified planting zones.
TABLE 2: MITIGATION PLANTING ZONES ALONG MODIFIED SECTION OF
TRIBUTARY Gl
Zone At -Stream Channel Bottom Outside of Base Flow Channel- Herbaceous Vegetation
Only
Common Name Scientific Name Seeding Rate
(Pounds! Acre)
Prairie Wildrye Elymus canadensis 4
Grasses Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus 3
Inland Seaoats Chasmanthium latifolium 4
Legumes lllinois Bundleflower Desmanthus illinoensis 15
Clasping Coneflower Rudbeckia amplexicaulis 1
Cutleaf or Engelmann Daisy Engelmannia pinnatifida 2
Wildflowers
Obedient Plant Physostegia intermedia I
Scarlet Sage Salvia coccinea 2
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projecls\816\0201\Word\Tribulary G1 Mil Plan.doc
Page 16
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
TABLE 2: MITIGATION PLANTING ZONES ALONG MODIFIED SECTION OF
TRIBUTARY Gl (CONT.)
Zone A2 - Top of Bank of Modified Channel - Herbaceous Vegetation with Canopy Trees,
Small Trees, and Shrubs*
Common Name Scientific Name Number
Black Walnut Juglans ni~ra 38
Canopy S Ii ppery Elm Ulmus rubra (fulva) 38
Trees Chinquapin Oak Quercus muhlenbergii 38
Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii 38
Pecan Carya illinioensis 26**
*Trees shall be at least 5-gallon container grown size or comparable size harvested from local
area.
**Does not mc1u e preservation of several mature pecan trees within existin riparian corridor.
Common Name Scientific Name Number
Deciduous Holly /lex deciduas 25
Texas Redbud Cercis texensis (canadensis) 15
Eve's Necklace Sophora affinis 15
Small Rough-leaf Dogwood Cornus drummondii 35
Trees and
Shrubs Rusty Blackhaw Viburnum rufidulum 10
Smoothleaf Elbowbush Forestiera pubescens var. 100
glabrifolia
Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 140
d
*Shrubs shall be at least 1-3 gallon container grown size or comparable size harvested from the
local area.
Herbaceous Seed Mixture
Common Name Scientific Name Seeding Rate
(Pounds! Acre)
Prairie Wildrye Elymus canadensis 3
Grasses Virginia Wildrye Elymus virginicus 4
Inland Seaoats Chasmanthium latifolium 4
Legumes lllinois Bundleflower Desmanthus illinoensis 15
Plains Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 1
Lanceleaf Coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata 2.5
Wildflowers
Gayfeather Liatris mucro nata 2.5
Huisache Daisy Amblyolepis setigera 2
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary G1 Mit Plan. doc
Page 17
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
12. Planting Success
The planted mitigation areas will exhibit an 80 percent cover of herbaceous speCIes three
consecutive years after planting or the areas will be replanted until an 80 percent ground cover is
achieved for three consecutive years after the most recent remedial planting and none of the three
most dominant species may be non-native, noxious, or invasive species.
The tree and shrub species specified in Section 11 will have a minimum survival of 80 percent of
the total number planted for five consecutive years after planting. Eligible trees will be those
specified in Section 11 and be at least one-inch diameter at breast height or six feet tall. Eligible
shrubs will also be those specified in Section 11 and be at least two feet tall. If the survival is
less than 80 percent within the designated mitigation areas five years after planting, the City will
replant as necessary to achieve the minimum density for five consecutive years after the most
recent remedial planting. V olunteer growth that meets the species and size criteria will be
eligible for counting.
13. Performance Standards
The mitigation area will be maintained until such time as the USACE is satisfied that waters of
the U.S. meet the definition of a water of the U.S. under the Regulatory Program regulations as
of this permit's authorization date and that this water of the U.S. is functioning as intended and at
the ecological level described in the mitigation plan, and buffer and riparian zones and other
areas integral to the enhancement of the aquatic ecosystem are functioning as the intended type
of ecosystem component and at the level of ecological performance described in this mitigation
plan.
14. Mitigation Plan Benefits vs. Impacts
The following table presents a discussion of how the ecological benefits of the proposed
mitigation plan will provide compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts to aquatic functions as
a result of the proposed project.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 18
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF MITIGATION PLAN VS.
EXISTING AQUA TIC RESOURCES ON PROJECT SITE
Function Existing Tributary Proposed Mitigation Plan
Channels/W etlands
Flow attenuation The growth of woody and The proposed channel alignment
herbaceous vegetation within the for the modified channel will
existing channel provides some follow the existing channel
flow attenuation for storm runoff. alignment. The proposed
However, the eroded channel is modified channel will be sized to
relatively straight (minimal adequately convey storm runoff
meandering) and unable to from the existing developed
adequately convey storm runoff drainage basin. Additional off-
from the urban watershed. channel detention basins are
proposed to provide flow
attenuation for future
development so that runoff does
not exceed pre-development
conditions.
Desynchronization of peak The existing off-channel detention Additional off-channel detention
flows basins required by City ordinance basins will be required for
provide significant developments within the City's
desynchronization of peak flows jurisdiction and have been
proposed for development of the
DFW Airport property in the
upper drainage basin of this
tributary. These detention basins
are critical to provide
desynchronization of the
resulting peak flows from
impervious surfaces of the
developed tracts. The modified
segments of the tributary will
provide both conveyance and
some detention time of storm
flows due to increased capacity.
Groundwater recharge Tributary G-1 is classified as The proposed design for the
ephemeral as no groundwater modified channel includes a
interaction was observed during natural earthen channel bottom
the on-site investigation. so any potential groundwater
recharge for the channel reach
will be preserved.
Flood capacity The existing degraded tributary The proposed modified channel
channel does not have adequate will have flood capacity to
flood capacity for drainage from convey the lOG-year frequency
the existing urban watershed and storm event from the existing
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary 01 Mit Plan.doc
Page 19
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
potential flooding of public and developed watershed. If
private property will result without detention basins are not
development of additional developed concurrently with
conveyance capacity. future development of the DFW
Airport property, the modified
channel will have capacity to
convey flows from the 25-year
frequency storm event.
Dissipation of erosive The existing channel is The proposed design for the
storm flow velocities experiencing significant erosion, modified tributary channel
especially in the reach downstream includes reinforcement of the
of Bethel Road. Two residences channel side slopes with gabion
are in immediate peril as a result baskets to prevent erosion of the
of existing on-going erosion. channel and features to facilitate
dissipation of erosive storm flow
velocities.
Water Quality Water quality improvement The proposed mitigation plan
Improvement functions within the existing includes planting the earthen-
. Trapping of channel currently include trapping bottom of the modified channel
sediment/filtration of coarse debris and some with selected native grasses and
. Assimilation of sedimentation of coarse sands legumes to provide filtration and
nutrients within wider reaches of the trapping of both fine and coarse
. Degradation of channel upstream of Bethel Road. sediments, assimilation of
organics Minimal assimilation of nutrients, nutrient loads, degradation of
. Transformation of degradation of organics, or organics, and transformation
heavy metals transformation of heavy metals is and/or uptake of heavy metals
provided within the currently that may be transported within
degraded channel due to the the storm flows from the
flashiness of the flows and weedy watershed. Detention and
vegetative growth currently treatment of these storm flows
existing within the riparian area. with the proposed modified
channel design should provide
overall improvement in water
quality for the flows to the
downstream reaches of Tributary
G-l and Grapevine Creek.
Habitat functions The limited riparian corridor along The proposed mitigation plan
. Contribution of Tributary G-I provides some includes planting of native
allochthonous habitat structure and substrate for grasses and legumes within the
materials insects, birds, and small mammals channel bottom along a
. Isolated, within this urban environment. meandering base-flow channel
intermittent pools The allochthonous material as well as establishing a
as supplied to the tributary channel is buffering riparian corridor
breeding/nursery an important food source for within the drainage easement
areas for invertebrates, primarily insects and along the banks of the modified
amnhibians mollusks, and fish that may exist tributary channel. Canopy trees,
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projecls\8I 6\020 I \Word\Tributary GI Mil Plan. doc
Page 20
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
amphibians in downstream reaches of small trees and shrubs and
. Perennial habitat Tributary G-l and Grapevine herbaceous species are included
for fish Creek. The limited existing within the planting plan for the
. Production of canopy cover provides some upper banks of the tributary to
autochthonous shading of stream channel to provide diversity and enhanced
material prevent excessive temperatures. habitat structure and substrate
. Diversity of However, the ephemeral nature of for animals within the
ecosystem the tributary within the project surrounding area. The planted
reach (including any small pools) species will also provide
limits habitat functions to allochthonous and
transitory species. autochthonous material to
downstream reaches of Tributary
G-l and Grapevine Creek.
Quality hard-mast producing
trees existing within the riparian
corridor of the proposed project
area will be preserved wherever
possible and incorporated into
the overall design and mitigation
plan.
15. T &E Species
The proposed project is not expected to affect any listed threatened or endangered species.
16. Other Impacts
Due to the location and nature of the proposed project area, the proposed project is not expected
to affect any cultural resources. Correspondence with the Texas Historic Commission regarding
the removal of the existing box culvert at the Bethel Road crossing is included in Appendix E.
There are no ecologically sensitive areas identified within the vicinity of the project area. Finally
as a result of the proposed mitigation, the proposed project is not expected to adversely impact
either the local or regional hydrology.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 21
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-1 - Coppell, TX
17. Long Term Operation and Management Plan
It is intended by the City of Coppell that the modified channel function with minimal
maintenance to provide designed conveyance of storm flows. The planted riparian area along the
banks of the channel will be allowed to develop as a natural area with minimal disturbance.
Mowing of this area will be limited to no more than four times per year during the first two
years, if needed, as the planted mitigation species are establishing. Once the mitigation species
are well established, mowing will be limited to no more than one time per year during the
dormant season (December-January).
Trash and debris will be removed from the modified channel by City personnel as needed to
maintain flows and functions of the stream channel. City personnel will periodically inspect the
drainage structures and trash and debris will be removed as needed so as to minimize disturbance
to the vegetation within the channel and along the channel banks. Any disturbed area will be
stabilized with vegetation as soon as possible. Additional erosion control measures will be
employed until vegetative cover is re-established.
18. Monitoring
The progress of the mitigation area towards achieving the goals stated in the mitigation plan will
be monitored by measuring the development of hydrology, vegetation, soils, and habitat for
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Monitoring deemed appropriate for the proposed project and
mitigation includes measuring the development of vegetative cover within the modified stream
channel bottom and the riparian corridor along the banks, determining survival success of the
planted trees and shrubs within the riparian cover, and developing a photographic record of the
progress of the mitigation area. Monitoring techniques to be employed for the proposed project
and mitigation may also include conducting plant inventories and noting problem species.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary G1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 22
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
19. Monitoring Reports
The City of Coppell, acting through its agent Alan Plummer Associates, Inc. (AP AI) will report
to the USACE monitoring results, mitigation success, and general compliance with the terms and
conditions of the permit. The USACE will be notified of the schedule of activities for each
phase of the proposed project and mitigation plan at least 30 days prior to the start of soil-
disturbing activities. Additionally, the USACE will be notified regarding the date of the pre-
construction meeting held by the City for appropriate contractor(s) to explain the terms and
conditions of the permit, provisions of the mitigation plan, and the contractor's responsibility in
ensuring compliance with the permit. Within two weeks following the meeting, the USACE will
receive confirmation that the meeting was held.
In addition to the above-mentioned notifications, the City will submit annual written compliance
reports, due October 1 each year beginning October 1, 2004 (or first year following issuance of
permit). These reports will be submitted to the USACE even if no work is conducted during the
reporting period until the USACE verifies that the City has successfully completed all mitigation
plan components, the mitigation area has met the performance standards, including planting
success requirements as previously outlined in Section 12 of this mitigation plan and all
authorized construction activities have either been completed or deleted from the project. Each
report will contain at least a description of construction or mitigation plan schedule changes, a
summary of activities that occurred during the reporting period, documentation that the City is in
compliance with all permit conditions, documentation of the progress and/or completion of all
authorized work including mitigation plan activities in meeting performance standards and
planting success, a description of the project's actual impacts to waters of the U.S.,
documentation that disturbed areas are revegetating and not suffering erosion damage,
documentation that adjacent aquatic areas are adequately protected from construction activities,
and photographs, maps and drawings to support the written components of the mitigation plan.
In addition to these components, the first annual report will also contain a written description of
the pre-construction conditions of the project area, including the mitigation area.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary G1 Mit Plan.doc
Page 23
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
20. Mitigation Specialist Info
A qualified biologist from APAI, 841 West Mitchell Street, Arlington, Texas 76013-2506, (817)
461-1491, shall be retained to oversee project construction, mitigation plan implementation, and
reporting provisions.
21. Mitigation Plan Schedule
The schedule for the proposed project including past actions pertaining to the proposed project
and actions pertaining to the issuance of General Obligation Bonds for the Bethel Road I project
is as follows. The City of Coppell is scheduled to issue $8,750,000 in 2004 General Obligation
Bonds for the construction and offsite drainage for the Bethel Road I project. This is part of a
larger bond issue. The tentative bond issuance schedule indicates the City of Coppell will
consider an ordinance authorizing the issuance of said bonds on April 27, 2004. The bond
closing and delivery of funds to the City is scheduled for May 27, 2004
? Design and Drainage Study Initiated by City
? City Council Approval of Requested Variance
? Correspondence with Texas Historic Commission (THC) re:
historic structure (box culvert at Bethel Road crossing)
? Response received from THC re: box culvert
? Development of information for Preparation of
Official Statements for Bond Counsel February 27, 2004
~ Preparation of Draft Official Statements March 5,2004
? Draft Official Statements distributed to the City and Bond Counsel March 12,2004
? Comments received on Draft Official Statements March 17, 2004
? POS's distributed to Rating Agencies and Insurance Companies March 19,2004
? Submittal of 404 permit application to USACE March 30, 2004
? Bond Rating Meetings in New York March 31 through
April 4, 2004
April 20, 2004
? Electronically mail Official Statements to Potential Purchasers
February 13,2001
December 10,2002
February 2, 2004
February 13,2004
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\816\0201\Word\Tributary Gl Mit Plan.doc
Page 24
Mitigation Plan for the Tributary G-l - Coppell, TX
)p> Receive Ratings and Insurance Bids April 21, 2004
)p> City Council passes Ordinances authorizing issuance of the Bonds April 27, 2004
)p> Archeological Survey for Roadway & Channel Project area May 3, 2004
)p> Bond Closing and Delivery of Funds to the City May 27, 2004
)p> Public Notice for 404 Permit/401 Water Quality Cert. July 1,2004
)p> Response submitted for any comments received to Public Notice August 2, 2004
)p> Development of Final Plans August 2, 2004
)p> Roadway and Channel Rights-of-Way Acquired August 2, 2004
)p> Bid opening August 31, 2004
)p> City Council awards contract September 14, 2004
)p> Relocations for utilities completed October 4, 2004
)p> Notice to proceed with construction October 4, 2004
)p> Construction of roadway and channel modifications completed April 1, 2005
22. Deed Restriction
The City of Coppell will dedicate in perpetuity by deed restriction the area including the
approximately 1,900 LF of Tributary G-I stream channel and the planted riparian corridor within
a 60' drainage right-of-way identified in the mitigation plan that will be purchased by the City.
The only exceptions to the deed restriction shall be easements in existence or specified in project
development drawings on March 15,2004. The mitigation area will not be disturbed, except by
those activities that would not adversely affect the intended extent, condition, and function of the
mitigation area or by those activities specifically provided for in the approved mitigation plan or
in the special conditions for this permit. Unless otherwise specified, livestock grazing, mowing,
and similar activities will not be allowed in the mitigation area. The City will survey the
mitigation area, develop an appropriate deed restriction for the surveyed area, submit the draft
deed restriction to the USACE for review and approval, and then record the USACE-approved
deed restriction with the Dallas County Clerk. The City will provide a copy of the recorded deed
restriction to the US ACE within four months after receipt of the individual 404 permit. The
restriction will not be modified or removed from the deed without written approval of the
USACE. The conveyance of any interest in the property shall be subject to this deed restriction.
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
F:\Projects\8l6\0201\Word\Tributary OJ Mil Plan. doc
Page 25
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE FROM CITY ORDINANCE
.J'T '1 if - 0 ~
THI!.CITY.OP
DEPT: EngineeringIPublic Works
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
COPPELL
....... * ~...
l'~O
... ... .... . " ~
DATE: December 10,2002
ITEM #: tOlE
ITEM CAPTION:
Consider approval of a variance to the Coppell Code of Ordinances Chapter 13, Appendix C Design Criteria and
Standards, Section II Storm Sewers and Drainage, paragraph B Engineering Design for the construction of Bethel
Road.
GOAL(S):
~
IIII
APPROVED BY
CITY COUNCIL Motion to Approve
~ ON....................ABOVE DATE '1 t&.~ M;. Tunnell
~ lOs-peters
Vote - 7-0
\'-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval of this item will allow the design of West Bethel Road, from the west city limits to Freeport Parkway, to
proceed so that we can get back on schedule to bid the project for construction in late 2003.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances and. will be available to
answer any questions at the Council meeting.
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
DIR. REVIEW:
~:.:
t ~
5~
= :-..
,.. -
FIN. REVIEW: "1 ct _
eM REVIEW:
-
-..
~' ~...
-
.". \'1M.
'1 .... ..... =:
....
..' . DI*
:zDOLl2.05
- . .. "#"
::.::..... .,.,
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02
Document Name: #eng2-1 AR
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
To:
Mayor and City Council
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Dir. of Engineering/Public Works
December 10, 2002
Consider approval of a variance to Subdivision Ordinance No. 94-643 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Coppell Appendix C Design Criteria and
Standards, Section II Storm Sewers and Drainage, paragraph B Engineering
Design.
From:
Date:
RE:
The referenced section of the Subdivision Ordinance states "The Engineering design shall
generally conform to the criteria set forth in the City of Coppell City-Wide Storm Water
Management Study and the City of Dallas Drainage Design Manual." The Drainage Design
Manual for the City of Dallas states "All drainage systems will be designed to accommodate the
flow from the lOa-year frequency storm. . .". Designing for the lOa-year fully developed storm
is a criteria that has been utilized in the City of Coppell since approximately 1990. There are
some drainage systems within the City of Coppell which are not designed on the 1 DO-year storm.
Most notably, the drainage system along MacArthur Blvd. from Deforest Road south to Sandy
Lake Road is designed on a 5-year frequency storm.
Attached to this agenda item is a memo from myself to Jim Witt and Clay Phillips that goes into
great detail about our attempts to design the drainage system in West Bethel Road on a 100-year
design frequency. However, in designing systems for a 100-year frequency it is important to note
where you are discharging the collected water. In the case of West Bethel Road, if you were to
build a system to efficiently convey the laO-year design storm it would discharge water into the
small creek on the east side of Loch Lane then convey the water through the unimproved portion
of Grapevine Creek north of the Coppell Senior Citizens Center. This creek in turn meanders
adjacent to Old Coppell Estates, Big Cedar, Country Estates, Grand Cove, Creekview Addition,
etc. As Council may be aware, there have been several complaints of erosion in Grapevine Creek
adjacent to those subdivisions. To collect all of the water and discharge it into Grapevine Creek
on a 1 aD-year design is not the appropriate design for this drainage system. At best, that would
be an irresponsible design that could create additional drainage problems downstream.
There have been two drainage studies performed on this drainage basin, the first in 1999 and the
second in 2002. Both studies point to the need for detention on the DFW Airport property. The
airport property comprises 242-acres of the 464-acres of drainage basin that drains to the
tributary on the east side of Loch Lane. This is approximately 52% of the entire drainage basin.
As can be seen by the detailed memo, there have been numerous meetings and conversations
with representatives of DFW Airport; however, in the final analysis, I have been told that DFW
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Airport at this time will not support detention on their property nor acknowledge the concept or
need for detention.
At this time, I have three options concerning the drainage associated with West Bethel Road:
1. Indefinitely Postpone the project;
2. Build an efficient system that collects the 1 DO-year runoff and discharge it into the
unimproved section of Grapevine Creek. This means seven IO'x5' box culverts within
Bethel Road discharging into the small tributary on the north side of Bethel Road east of
Loch Lane; or
3. Design a system that will handle the IOO-year storm water runoff before the airport property
develops.
It is my opinion that Option 3 is the correct decision in the design of the drainage system. Option
3 gives us a 1 DO-year ultimate storm drain system until such time as DFW Airport develops the
242-acres of their property that drains through the City of Coppell.
If they develop irresponsibly and discharge all their water into our system, then our drainage
system will still have the future capacity to convey a 25-year storm. If they do the correct thing
when they develop and design detention to detain the increase in runoff on their property, then
our system will continue to have a 1 DO-year capacity in the future. There are no guarantees on
what the future holds on the development of the airport property or whether or not the airport will
do a responsible development on the property in terms of drainage.
To keep the Bethel Road project moving ahead, my recommendation is that the variance to the
Subdivision Ordinance be approved to allow the construction of a drainage system that conveys
the 1 DO-year runoff as it exists prior to development of the 242-acres of the airport property.
Staffwill be available to answer questions at the Council meeting.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
To:
Jim Witt, City Manager
Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Dir. of Engineering/Public Works
November 14,2002
Bethel Road Project ST 99-05
From:
Date:
RE:
Since 1998, the City ofCoppell has been evaluating drainage associated with West Bethel Road. In
1998 the City of Coppell hosted a meeting between the then property owners of the two large tracts
of land on the north side of Bethel Road to discuss the development of their property in regard to
drainage in Bethel Road. Those tracts of land are now referred to as the "Champion" and "Duke-
Weeks" tracts. The drainage basin for this portion of Bethel Road also includes approximately 240
acres of airport property discharging into Bethel Road at Royal Lane. In addition to that, the bulk
postal facility and the Minyards tract also discharge into Bethel Road. In total, there was
approximately 676 acres of land that discharged into Bethel Road near Coppell Road.
Realizing that drainage was going to be the overriding design consideration for the construction of
Bethel Road, a drainage study was commissioned by the City of Coppell called the "Southwest
Coppell Storm Water Management Master Plan". It was a joint venture between the City of
Coppell, NCH and Coppell Industrial NV. The study was prepared by HaIff and Associates. The
study pointed to the fact that detention would be required on the land north of Bethel Road and on
the airport property. The detention on the airport property was crucial because of the short distance
from Royal Lane to Freeport Parkway and the fact that there was no available land in that section
for detention.
In 2001, the City of Coppell entered into a design contract with TranSystems Corporation for the
design of Bethel Road from the west city limits to Freeport Parkway. The design contract was
structured so that there would be additional drainage studies to complement the previous drainage
study. TranSystems' drainage study also pointed to the fact that detention would be required. By
this time, the property north of Bethel Road had already been developed by "Champion" and
"Duke-Weeks" and in both cases the City of Coppell required detention that would not allow the
discharge of any additional water from the site than what would normally discharge in an
undeveloped condition. Also, the water from the "Champion" and "Duke-Weeks" property was
conveyed in an easterly direction and discharged into Grapevine Creek north of Loch Lane, not
directly into Bethel Road.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Page 1 of4
The challene:e now is to desie:n a drainae:e system that will convey a tOO-year storm and at the
same time not create any downstream erosion problems in Grapevine Creek. TranSystems has
provided two drainage studies for the City of Coppell to accommodate the drainage along Bethel
Road. Both studies show that detention will be required on the airport property. The detention on
the airport property is needed to detain the increase in water runoff when the 242-acres of airport
property develops. The last design by TranSystems shows two detention ponds strategically located
on the airport property generally along the west side of Royal Lane.
The design of a drainage system to accommodate the developed runoff along Bethel Road is not an
overwhelming engineering feat. Simply put, to convey the drainage along Bethel Road, it is only a
matter of installing additional box culverts. Preliminary design estimates are that there would need
to be seven lO'x5' box culverts along Bethel Road to accommodate the 100-year ultimate
developed runoff. However. the real challene:e in this desie:n is to balance the conveyance of
water with the potential for downstream erosion in Grapevine Creek. As you may be aware,
we have had erosion along a portion of Big Cedar' and Country Estates and there is evidence of
erosion in Hunterwood Park. To effectively collect all the ultimate developed stormwater in a
drainage system in Bethel Road i.e., the construction of seven 10'x5' box culverts, and convey that
water to Coppell Road and discharge it into Grapevine Creek just north of the Senior Citizens
Center would not be the wisest approach to accommodate the drainage associated with Bethel
Road. That approach would very effectively and rapidly convey a large amount of water to an
earthen channel and in effect create the potential for additional downstream erosion problems.
The e:oal in this drainae:e desie:n is to detain the increased runoff difference between the
undeveloped airport land as it exists today and the future developed airport land Detention
on the airport property is a critical component of this design. To that end, I met with
representatives of DFW Airport in July 2002 and presented them a copy of the revised draft
drainage report prepared by TranSystems. That report detailed the necessity for detention on the
airport property. I left a copy of the report for their review and asked them to respond to me
concerning the likelihood of a detention basin on airport property. I was even willing to accept a
letter from the airport stating that if at some point in the future they chose to develop then they
would construct detention at that time.
I have a legal opinion from Pete Smith that states that the City of Coppell cannot require the airport
to abide by our subdivision rules and regulations in regard to the development of their property.
Therefore, unless the airport decides to create detention, the City of Coppell cannot require
detention, even on the section of land that lies within the City of Coppell. However, representatives
of DFW Airport stated that they are bound by EP A and other environmental rules and regulations
the same as any municipality. They also have to obtain all permits and approvals prior to
development of their property.
It was my hope based on the meeting, that I would receive correspondence from DFW Airport
stating that they understood the drainage situation and they would be willing to construct detention
on their property at a future date if they decided to develop the 240-acres that drain into the City of
Coppel!. After numerous telephone calls, I was told in October 2002 that there would be no letter
forthcoming obligating DFW Airport for any future action.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Page 2 of4
The situation we find ourselves in today is:
. 1) The airport will not allow us to construct detention on their property;
. 2) The airport will not commit to construct detention in the future; and
. 3) It is my professional opinion that it would not be wise to construct an efficient system to
discharge all the future water into Grapevine Creek knowing that there are downstream erosion
problems that exist today.
I contacted our consultant, TranSystems, and asked them to evaluate the drainage system that was
proposed with Bethel Road to determine what level of capacity we would have in the future if no
detention was constructed on the airport property. In essence, what I was asking is: if we build a
system today in anticipation of detention on the airport property in the future and the airport chose
not to construct detention, but instead chose to discharge all of their water into our "undersized"
drainage system what level of capacity would we have in our drainage system? The reply to that
question is that we would have a drainage system capable of conveying about a 25-year fully
developed storm. If the system only conveys approximately a 25-year storm, then any larger event
that we have i.e., 50 or 1 DO-year storm, creates the potential for street flooding along Bethel Road.
The City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance requires that drainage systems be designed for a 100-
year fully developed storm event. Without a detention basin, the drainage system cannot be
designed for a 1 DO-year storm without discharging a substantial amount of water into an
unimproved section of Grapevine Creek. At this point, I find myself at a standstill on moving
ahead with this project. One the one side if I build an efficient system to convey all the water in the
future, I stand a very strong risk of creating erosion problems in Grapevine Creek. On the other
side, if I authorize the consultant to only design a system that will convey a 25-year storm I run the
risk of having street flooding along Bethel Road in those rare storm events that exceed a 25-year
frequency.
It is mv recommendation that we desie:n a drainae:e system capable of convevine: a 25-vear
ultimate developed storm and work with the airport at some future date when they chose to
develop the property in Coppell to try to obtain some type of detention onsite. It's important
to note that our system will convey the 1 DO-year storm as long as the airport property remains
undeveloped. Also, if the airport constructs detention in the future, our system will still convey the
100-year storm. The only situation that reduces the capacity of our system would be if the airport
fully developed their property and released all the water without detention. With an undersized
system downstream, if and when the airport decides to develop, they will be in a predicament of
how to convey their water because our system would not be adequate to allow the release of all of
their water. So there is a possibility that they would be forced to have some type of onsite detention
just by virtue of the downstream system being undersized. To construct a system not in
conformance with the Subdivision Rule and Regulations requires a variance from City Council.
Therefore, I will take an agenda item on December 10, 2002 to request a variance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGlNEERlNG - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Page 3 0[4
Summary of Key Dates:
· February 4, 1999 "Southwest Coppell Storm Water Management Master Plan" by HaIff &
Associates.
Sponsored by: The City of Coppell, NCH, & Coppell Industrial NY
· March 22, 1999 Legal opinion from Pete Smith that we cannot require DFW Airport to
install detention.
· April 13, 1999 Memo to Curtis Inglis, DFW Airport, providing summary of meeting
between Halff & Assoc., and Tracy Thompson, Doug Bryan & Mike Pyles
of DFW Airport and requesting clarification of drainage requirements on
airport property.
· May II, 1999 Summary of reply from Curtis Inglis of DFW. Mr. Inglis spoke with
Kevin Cox and Gary Keane and Mr. Inglis stated that development of
airport property would be accomplished in responsible manner.
· February 13,2001 Entered into design contract with TranSystems Corporation for Bethel
Road and associated drainage.
· January 18,2002 Received "Drainage Report Executive Summary" from TranSystems.
Report outlined necessity for detention on DFW Airport property.
· May 30, 2002 Received "Revised Draft Drainage Report for Regional Detention
Analysis I Bethel Road Improvements".
· July 18,2002 Met with representatives ofDFW Airport and provided copy of "Revised
Draft Drainage Report for Regional Detention Analysis I Bethel Road
Improvements" for their review.
· October 11, 2002 Was informed that representatives of DFW Airport would not commit to
any detention now or in the future.
· October 14, 2002 Requested evaluation of drainage system in Bethel Road if no detention
was provided by DFW Airport when they developed and our system was
constructed today as if there was no increase in runoff from DFW.
. October 25,2002 Received letter from TranSystems that system would convey
approximately a 25-year storm with ultimate development without
detention.
"CITY OF COPPELL ENGINEERING - EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN"
Page 4 of4
APPENDIX B
FIGURES AND EXHIBITS
\[ \1\.. P[ U'v1!\1I~R
"''''-;(H I \as INC
General l
Project L07C8tion - K \ 1 / y
.. ~\ "" JI-
--"'- ~"
~ ........1 ..~ H ~~~. w._....
. ........ ').."C" ~ ~ _ .__' ,_
'\l J "71:1 ~ .,~~ ~ ..... n. ~-;:f:: - '
,~ : !I: T M....lIll ~,
, ..... \.. 'Y: =-
'\.- r--T
"' Ilr--I
G...L 1
~
--
DALLAS COUNTY
fHYIltONMENTAL I!NGINfI!:MI . DESlGNEM - SCIENTISTS
--
......
---~.
.-
:S
:::J
o
(/)
"0
III
o
0::
Project Location
Bethel Road We t
'"
3
.>L-
a;
a..
t::
Q)
dl
It
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
March 18, 2004
FIGURE 1 of 17
'-' .jl . ....'
..-'t J
. "'-.,S ...,
~-
o
",,-
\
.,
\
)
\
-.J\
Cl. 11\ T
~V
! u
" II
I II
! \.
(
.
'. .
I
./
" .
CJ
'oct ·
o .
ct ·
.
. . .
I. :___
----
.
_~..i".
.
.
. .
.
/
,
I
\
".
-'.
" .
"
t
fJ~6
,
i
-.'.........
TERN
· !;J~U
"-, -". . j /" .-- - .'.."
'.." jJ / \
\
I
..
..'
II.';', . (
:/ l "\
!
I
I
..,....,'..... \
~, .,
,,'
,
,
I
/
D Boundary of Jurisdictional Determination
-+.
s
In
C)
In
~
Iii
~
...
C)
l:t
ci:j
...
co
iti
ti
Q)
'0
...
1,000
500 0 Feet
I
.;..::
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
(FROM USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS:
GRAPEVINE & IRVING, TX QUADRANGLES)
March 18, 2004
FIGURE 2 of 17
, ; "'!;', '!\if '.,
~ :! ..::J_ ......
. ,. rlII: .
, "
l=.
. 2;1,. fIlr:
f, l
;',
1-
" ~111.
Idl
1 ~ If, ~
\1'11
I I'H(I!()(.I{
\ II{I \, IS. 200...
\ la! '. Ii. '..,
I " 1-<1- ~ lit J !
I. I.
Ii:
!f 11
8 :111."11
fil1.31
9.
511.~
511.18
+
'"
'"
511.05
510.91
.11
194
0.98
'"
+
8
""
(;
~
~ 510.65
~ i
Cj I
~ ... 519.8 I ;
+
~ 8 "I 5i I
". i
Q
~ 510.51
1-0&
.......:a
519.5
.-4-5
51D.38
...
+
'"
'"
51D.25
519,3
510.18
510.12
'r 519,7
'"
'"
I I
n
I .....
Ii ("'I-
!l..c::1
! I 0
I I-tt
a il.~'
"d
"d
('!)
! 1-
1:-"
~
(tl
~
! I ~
.. ,
III
a
n
c
rm
il1l~
ili~ I
i!11
zc
m
r-
"'I:lI
...
"'I:lI
~Il!.i.~
ili~"
!!~H
" Ii;;
inH
~ .&'1'"
~~I J
II d
.. ~i
I ~ ~ It
n~i
g i
~
(J1
'"
0;
i
W~
~~
--it
'"
l-->
o
\
1
I
,
\
\
\
\
)
I'
-.t ... ...........+.----. -....-. ---
I
I
,
I
\
I
-j--- ......--i- ...-- ---- _mo.
t
\
\
)
/
(
I
I
I
I
,
\
'\
I
...,
l
.. ---1
I
I !R~
J--...-i-~~. --....- -.......
I i:;Q~
!r
, i '2~
1 jmg
i I ~e;
I I ~
,~
~
i
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
;
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
I
)
\
\
I
I
......
....?'...
/
1
i
(
i
\
l
I
\ i
I
I
I
\
'"
l-->
0
I
I
I
~;~~
~~.~8
"I. ...
~ .1;IlI
c
!i
~r
'i'2
~~
Qn
~
~
~
;;j
I
ii
fi
ff
,1
J
P. '"
~ if
P. :;/
n ~
8::--
Pi
1tI
!O
..
r:
~
,....
I~ ~
: ~ GJ
~..~. p,-"
,
Ii
n
"
I H..'
Q1~" H
~~~
~r~~ u
qr;; Ir
li1
z
HI
I
I
1
I
)
I
I
I
N
..
is
"
.....
I
~
r:i
~
j;)
d
j i
i
I
~~
~ ~
I
1
,.
, I
I I
i
f
!
J
I
I
i
;
i
i
f
.. j
Ig:'r~
, '{
f
dJ
~
'II!
'il
Iii
II
, ;
or
*
VI
!n
I
I
f
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
,
I
!
i
i
i
;
"n
o
I
J
I
i
I
I
..
,.,
.s!
f!I
i!l
"1... ~
m+ CD
~.!'i
0.'"
-1Il
r"' VJ
I
l>
Z
i
o
II)
..",
o
I
~
."
'"
MATCHLINESTA 5+00
~
~
~
~
~
UI
Q
~
~
-..J
G:
~ 19.7
8 1.
509.9&
509.1\5
'"
+
8
509. 72.
518.9
.85
5OG.5&
"
+
8
QI
8
9
~
o
(It
C;;
QI
~
MATCH LIN.ESTAS+OO
\
\
\
1
'i
:iE
<:
i
)
I .
I i
-t-..........-J"
I !
r i
I
i
I
~;,_.m_.
j
I
r
I
!
eo!M~
009."&
5OG."l
~ 619.2
8 OCiG...1)
809.18
19.4
809.\2
509.06
~ /lOll. 9&
005.9l
OOIl.M
506.78
~ 1
8 00f!. n
I I
n
I I .....
.~
~
I I 0
~
Ii I ~..
I'd
I'd
I C'I)
IF
1-3.
(0
~
, I ~
;; ,
..
S
n
c
.1'.. a..
~..~
a .tJr-
Jx:a
II'.~
m
r-
."
...
."
'1'%
u'-~
~ ~_F
OJ
o
x
""
c:
~
'"
-<
'"
I
\
l
I
I
L__
r;
\
I
\
I
;;&::
!i!
~
IU
C
CIl
i
'llC
~
c
r:
...,
.,.,
o
~
><.
o.
c.
~I
-I:
"'!
i
i
:l!'
)
,
i '
J I
-1'- --.--J-
, !
r !
I i
!
i
. ..... moo 00'00_+
oll;
o
0;
I
:IE
<l)
CO o~l/
<1+
~ /
.....
en
r;j :.;P
I ..
.."
a
G")
0
I
~ I z
'"
2 Ul~
Ii) ,.:I,.::
lJ1 -l.
'"
~ 'I
Q.
lD
0
"
g +'
<: 8 iT!
!ll
-< 1
B.
~
! 1~'
16.,2 ,25' 25'
B-9 B-B
ttI
t;:>j
t-3
~ I
t"" <;}
-;
m
.~
0 \~
>-
t:;I
co ",I
+
13 l
II> I
rJ} j
1
t
2~ co 1
:f;o I i
~i I
21 1
l!:
z
~:;; t: I
0:0 ill II:'!
~..~~ "" ~
?'tD !
'"
;r
0 Ul
Ul
I:i i
.. '" \
+ ::J: i
8 i
0 ! ~
::J: \
m I
I
1m
~: I
I
~
:E
~
~
Q V1Ul
,..;l-l-C/1
li~
'f
.~.~
c-"",,
'"
r:
;B
o
(;)1
ril
!
~
o
U1
C;;
U1
'"
o
MATCH LINE STA 1Q+OO
(;
l!.
~Iii.~ ~
i ij
1'~lr g
~' 9~- ~.
iHH ~
N
'!' "l~ g
~;l'f
It.~ s.i
~-'11"<
....,in if
i~i!1 ill
,.Ill
Dog if
Q:
~
8 508; 2
5OU5
51 .1
508.52
<l-
S
518.
508.3&
51 .
08;
508.25
,.
8 os.
VI
8
l!l;ll !
"', .
~I'!
'!d!
iII~
~
508.12 "...-.. "'""'"'T'-'" ....
~
I-ol
~ 507.&6
~
~ <:; 17.7
<I-
g
="
= !
~
~ 507.65 "-"1-"'""'''
i
'I ;
;
i
i
17
. &
507.72
t
g
507.SG
507.45
'f 5111.8
c
'"
I I
(')
( 14
I I 0
~
n I (')
0
I'd
I'd
I cD
! .....
I -
8
(tl
~
, I .P'.
00
- ,
...
17
o .
o .
II
2
n
c
~ .!(.m
.~. Ift.~
i i. .~
a(5r""
!.'.' . ~. XI.
li~
-
"a
..
"a
~
o
VI
0.
C1
""
o
ti
"l
MATCHLINESTA 10...00
\
I
+
8
14.8
G
o
~
<:
!f.
r>1
I
/
""
!
I
I
I
J
I
i
I
i
I
~
0::
~ ~
o
~
N
<I-
8
&4--.....____....
~
DO
\!S '"
~ c.;!!
lS 0 i~
'" :r ~.~
~ fT1
~ .....z
'"
0
><
e
~
:!!l
;;;
+
S
~ "tT"
m
8~
x'
i~
~.~
~..~
al
..
.+ t:lj
<>
f l:';j
t-03
~
t:x:l
12. .
'"
.~
l"'1
d
~':ll
X~
~.~
~~
\il....
g~
'"
'"'1
C
Q
;;il
I
>E
I
i
!
!
I
I
,.,
!
II
...- ".""" ........... ...... '-"I
I
;
I
I
I
r
>E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
.t_H'H'
I
j
I
i
I
cr~
~~
~ ~r.-
III
'"
E
~
~
25'
a-B
()
r-1
g~
loll,...
iD 0..
~.~
z:"
c~
.....,
"'....
::E
r-'" "
I
I
d
",I
M
I
..Q..
III
i
!il
~
%
c
z
'"
'"
i
~1
..,
{)
r;:j
::;;
1.
g:ll
~~
~B~
~J!l
g~
'"
I
I
!
I
,
i
\
!
i
I
,
tJl
'"
~
o
~
'"
'"
""
o
MATCH LINE STA15+00
N
D
ill!f cl
[ !It!
!~IH ~.
I
N
i" D.
Gt ~. tl
~;iH
h i1
f~~i ~
...in.
D.!l ~
~
~
~
o
~
........
=
~
~
........
Gl:
~ U1
<n (;;
'i ,,,,, .
a 507,;,& !
CJ I
! I
507.32
516.0
S07:Z5
I
l!Ji"
x~
c:z
~~
;j~
o
~
. .-...-.. ............... -.... .-.
.....-.......... ...........
.... ............ .......................................... ......
~.Il!....li
! 1"1
~ ~i.
"'I ~. >
i~iH
..\ ~ ~
~. =ill
h.- ii
~.. ~'C. i"
I. : ;11
d~i
g ij'
!
i
I
i
.-.. i'
i
i
!
1
I
'"
(;;
e~~
i~.'~l
. ja 1
i", +.
!
i
i
....._ ....__..............i
.-..- ........ .y...-... ....
l I
J
! ;
m...._.~.../
; ,
! r
! J
i I
! !
i
/,
n
"
,.
I!
Ii
rl
Ii
Ii
...../...1........
, ;
i I
!
,
!
I ,
i j
i
I
,
I
l-
I
i !
1/
Y
Ii
I]
jl
tl
\ ..1.
~
1\
Ii
\/I
to
h
Ii
[I
II
! I
II
; !
I I
I;
J I
I :
f I
t i
r !
, i
i i
..............-7......1-....-.-...........-
I i
If l
f l
r
j
i
,I
I
/
/
/
,
.~.....
! \\\
i \
!
i
\
i
J
I
, ,
i!
If
If
n
I
i
!
!
I
;
....m..n_n_t-...._..o..o..
i
!
i
i
,.... . ....... ., . ".... .-
'"
C;;
MATCH LINE STA 15+00
I
8
I
1
l
m."D
a'"
~.lil
o
z;ll
J;;Z
....
:l;.
~I
507.10
~ 51114
8~
507.05
515,1
""5lll!D - -.......
,
,
I
I
.-..+..
I
I
!
I
i
;r.
IJ]
"
r:
~~
\'l
51
'"
!il
~
I ~
I c
I
I
I
l:S.
:$
soag:l
" 516.0
€i soass
506.79
51.';,3
soan
I
506.62 I
I
.. 514,11
+ 506.52
'"
0
506. 4:l .... .............. f..-....... .............. ........
514.4
5ll6.33
506.23
~~...
O. ,,,,1.1-'
a
Soa03 to
I '"
~
1M t
51' Q i
50::;.113
505.83
. .... ...... .. ..... ..
q
(;)
"'-I
fTl
r.l.
+' 513.1
8 ""505:73
I I ..
~ () 9
i I~ ,...
~T (')
~ "<l c:
liS, 2i~
U I .~..I.. a ill I
~ "Co C5 r- ~
11~1111
1-3 m
~ ~ r
IS!.) "a
, 00 It
;- -cII
~
1;
.,
l~
!z
8
I
I~ ....r;;
~ I "
I Ii
ill I ii~ ;
~.I i;g I
11 \
'" ~ I' i
~ ~ ,f i P_.4.. I Iflgf
i I r.h l A~'
~ I Wll I ~~ I 9 ~ q I
~ NI~~~ f ~
I~
~li\1 ~ :
I ff:if I l. 0 I
I ,I . I ~l 'q I
t I I ;; I I /~
~~i I I "E~ I 1/.1' I .' )
~!g I, ! ~I ~~ I \,/ I .J -~ ------1
;;\1 I j ,I " ..~rF !"" l ;;~ _ _
/ IO~ / ~ I'" II ~ - I t ~ ...................- ..... --
'Z 1;1 J Ci4il11;" i fl ~ w
~ : -;,//2:iJ;I ,~];Wl.I~ '~;I......~. rm.~..........;..._....m.m......__..mm
_Cl ~J \.1 .~g ....~ !, I
n.'. /::::::::;;::;! 0\ ...,. '"
" ~ ~c~~ i
::c,-o/ / / Ii ><1 P \'\ i
i
c:v - ~ I,I I ; I~
Z :--1 ~ ;:-,-
- 1-1 [""; il"i
55
m r iii+. \'\ I~ '11
.-. ~t..~ 'I
~ ~~.~ ~c 8 "h U ,I j 1
~ r2 I~Z~'~"~ ~,~ I 1--1 r rEPORT PKWY
o ',: ,,,,,,.. .'. 1 \ II
+ '!l~ / ~ . - l 'Vfl f-H --;,T
o . ~.;, ~.' I!. ' .... 7 - -
o , v ;;J \.~ i~' ~ '\ X
x filii' ij Ll~' ',I' \ I "fi.:!)
- - ----.Aib... ~~I' '.' 11 I I ~ ~rJl
- .10; 'Ii: I II ! I J I l:( 0
0+ III l I' 'I J
'" r. I 111 I \ 1 '"""
Q
:f
;r
I
I
!~
o
;v
.,
<
'"
I
~
q
~III
'lil
~z ",
'"""0 z
"'9, ~..
~U1,"2l;!
><~~~.
~~,g~ ~
~!il~::,.~
olSil:!lc.&
III
a
><
(")
r;;;z
~~
~r.
~~
'"
"
~ ~j~l
-
~'
&:
'"
~ 513.'
8 .u.."
505.64
512.7
.\>.....
505.44
'"
+' 512.3
g 505.34
505.22
SOlD
~5.[JU
504.U5
~ SlI6.4
8 004.'"
504.S7 I
I
I
!
50S.4-
504.54
~
~
~
~
~
(Xl
Q
~
~
~
504.4-0
~ 5OS.3 I
g .u4.:LD
504-.12
8
U>
o
U>
~
o
1/
,
,
i
I
I
I
mm .mmm...tm..
I
i
I
I
I'
............ ..............1.......... ....... ....... ... .....................
I
51^' ~1+70 00 !
END OX CI "';Ins
8Ectl CH"'N~EL
ELEV: 14a
I r i"
0;0
."'! --.--
iz I
~'"
"
'"
lil !
~
1 I
i
I ,
!
!
i
,./'-
i
I
I
i
........ J-...
...--
---
/4 ;
~/
J
J
(
l
,
j
!
I
I
I
I
\
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
/
I
r
I~:~
I ~ z
~ ~
I ~ '"
I ~ E
.1 ;~
m... '.m...m ..L...
)
}
l
!
~F\,
I~*H
~~;..
........ .....m........ ... ........ ...._
I
i
1
!
l
I
t
I
I
i
i
r
J I
I ( 1
>----'-- /---- - - ,+
1 I .
I I
I I
I I
I
SD
I
/ /'
./
/
I
/
FREEPORT PKWY
v-
I
?;~
"'=I
Zliz
~a
;Z:Z:
"'"
~~
i~ 1
f!I
1
I
\
~C':l
~'~lil
O~'tl
Ul Ri.~
'1;1...
l=cI- 'tl
!=I~SSn
n. tOO
"'~I!'Jii::
'~-15
!'"'i3 ~
rP.l
z
co
"!
i:
-=--{}~_. - ......
~
n
I i')A"ormn'on"F
Y~'~ ,,,....~
~tl' " ~
-- A~~;- -- -1- rn
.-., ~n .....
~~ "l~ Sl!!~ PROP -...,;;;
it;\' ~M ;-"l... 60'0"'"
<-iN 0+ ~
I '1:+ r!!:: iil ~
III~ ~ Q
r---~~" ~
I;;~ c:)
I!~i ~~
~~ tl'U~E1l
:t ~p ...;! &i
I.~'.'~ b~~ I
'" <'IN<.~
~. ~cg~
I I~
!"
.1
.,
I
\
I
I
]
~.~~
11...,
I "'....
'. J
.... ......__.____-.J 0 ---.
0'-' -R) -.......-.............-.- .-
r
8
I
t
~
~
'"
..
'"
o
~
",\IJ..
l:~
g~
.i:f
I
J
g-<gg
~P;~~
f>~~!il
:-<=. ~~
..11).1"'\
-n)o
",!elp
~3r
'"
5OS.5
~3.Ug
503.85
t 5OS.3
8 Su.>. n
503.57
50S:0
503.43
503.30
'"
~ 5OS.0
8 ou.>.l.
I I 111 I
f- n .g....
i 14 n
f- c: >>
! 10 ~.~.tI.
1 H1l1'rn!!l
~!2 I. i ~ t....
II ~ Ii i ~~
~ m
ctI r-
~ "
! I t1J ....
.- "a
5 21+ 774 /1
FL 50" *P 5I;~.22 I
__.._ .......... _....._... mo.
~I ~~;l
t~i
'1 I;;
~1~~H
~ .-1l"D
~~dJ
i~jg!
~._~1i.
." S'I"~
-511' ~ti
! c~~1
.-1 ""ll
. D,g i
/
J
/
i
I
)
I
/
I
Ul
a
U>
~
o
~
~
d
1
j t~
~~ I
- - - -.--
\~
!It
l~
l~
g:
:..
"
iT!
~
.;j.
- ~--l~-~
""r-, t
"':9 g
p~ 'Q
t.lf4 ;;g
~"6t:
- ~...;!n
:-ar~~
~.~ II::
no ~
~~ ~
I
I
\~ \ ~ l
MATCH LI.NESTA25fOO
\
~~I~;
1;;;1
i
;;0 ~. /il
~ n1l
fT1 t~
.." 2
fT1 .=l li!.,
;lJ 0 i;
"'I z
0 lJ
fT1 1 i~
x
:r:
00
"'I
() -I
I 'tl '"
.... I
'"
~. i
Fe
..
1.1I
!j-
iii
1:
~
I
r~~
nl!~
li~a
ia:l~
!lI;l~n
~~Ii
:~
-
1
I
111
J!~ 1
~ r
I
I
1
I
1
..
c
8.
~.
..
c.
t
"!
I
..
c
J
:t ,.
G:
~ 505.0
o ~
o
503.02.
5CJ4..8
~88
502.75
~ 506.7
8 ~
502.+7
506.0
--SOU3
8
502,2.0" ---..-.1---. .......- ........ ..-.... ....-.
r
~
~ ~~.- ..- -i-- ..-.......
o
lI1
o
50Ul2..' .-........
50+.1
501. 78
~
~
~
~
~
\C
Q
~
~
......:I
501.6+
~ 50+.0
8 """3llBi
'"
o
01
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
\
\
,
\
\
\
t"
'"
",
,.
!
I
i
i
I
I
"
J
J
,
I
I
I
i
...... ........-. ..J ...-..-.
I
I ! ~
.... ........... ...-...... .....- j...- ........ji-.. ...............
1!
10
~~
I
-....- .........- -......... ............. ............ .........- .'._j ..-....... .........
I
i
I
I
> cp. -IN Ii' RC
. : 2~ 21.7
:~
501.37
'"
8
~
il'j8 !t.";}
.. r"'
i ,J[
[ !l.1!
'lj~;'
j18~H
. -~i!l
II;!!'I"
l~j~l
~.-;U'lroc i'
I ~i.lt.
..l;i'l
, ~
I I
I
i !
i ,
( I
!
I
, I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
/
,
g
01
i~~
i ilil*~
!j',. ~
~
o
MATCH LINE STA 25~OO
'I\!\ \' '7
I \ \
,98 ~
.,,~:.;I~ \'
.;;q...~.,,"o~
~;gs:n \
o. {JJO
~~:;
......g~
",t<1
!:II
o
\~
~
\~
\::.
\~
...
9'
\~.
\
\ ~~; \ \R~
\ \ ~\
\\
\
r ~ ~'" ~
\'.........;
'irg''i
\ I .&1. I .~.~
~ ~~." ~
:;0
~ i
r'1 r-
~ Ki
CII n
- ::J
.., 0
Q Z
I
N
\
\
- , .. ... .n ~'" l'
di~ .~
~~~iJ
I;I;!
~ I"
~ ii
~z:
"'~
~J
i1;;j
I
II
1m
i~
I ll. ~
,~.
..~"
~
~~
.q,~
..~~.
rP
~
~~
'l!:
g~~ r"""'''g.....
~~6 U." II Ip~
P;'B'" ~ p..1'J ~ !! .i! ~
lDl'l ! .. '" . ,a
b " ~t#l -111.'\0111
n~~'-~-"i
;.,;;j.... ~:;:.
..
~
c;
o~
~;:;....
~\;/
i:~li
~.ali).-f_1tI!
rl'1[g"';-
l~~G~
~<..;"'"' .u..
,
o
(
gl
o~
:.;.la
g~~
i"'i;g~
. (I.l
~
~~
...
~::...,
...~. .'<\l..
1': 0..>,.
~?)('
...
'"
~:~l
-
'"
'"
504.1
501.2~
SOUll
f 503.8
8~
I I
- n
I I~
- '<
I I ~
"-"--
UI~
I-- I'd
I'd
II ~
1-3
{tl
I-- X
I ! ~
III I
R
n
c
~~m
iiifi I'
an .... ;i ~
Iltll
m
....
."
II
."
~i
:~
I'll! ...
4!~f 11;
T ."
*'~
"l~
~
...
.T
~
~
~
~
~
~
=
o
~
~
'-l
~ 503..8
8 .!lOO.9S
500.82
503.+
'Too.. 611
500,54
I
.po
<D
{J1
'~:J.~ ...... ......:&W ~ONii~-"-""'"'' ....
o
aECN 1>]1 C LVER
f\LEV; ",0.38
500,27
"07,3
500.13
4119.99
~ 505.7
g +99.65
+99.72
504,11
+99;58
+99,+\-
~ I'jn~:i.7
g 499,30
+99,17
<<n~.,
+99.03
498.89
~ 504.3
8 ~B:75
+9eJ~' ~.H.H_
.n...'7
4118.48
to
[J1
I
I I
I---t-n
il~
II a
I--
Ult.~
1--1- l-d
."C
II ~
...,
(!)
~
!' ~,
....
51\1.: 30 +8.8< ~""
E!flBO CUll r TS
':!.,.,.INC ANN
El '" 1'> .14
"""""'f.''''~''''''
i 'il
i .~
'"
U1
a
c
~
[
I
)
,
I
f
i
/
,~
<I
:g
~~co I! (0
~;~i ~ /.
.p
~t"" /.
...
~
~~~~/..
n;Z:o
~t~~
I' 1li.-iZ+ 0 ~
~!i!i!~
I (lJq,~~
.............,r _! ' ~~
'"'t ~-
I \ I -,~ _.....1_ - 3.."" GnL - -- 3 ~~~ 3...l
i \ ! I-- II I' ~ -'-"-'~.........-J;.
Ii 'f' __ 'If --~. '''=f:' _.:- __'" - _.' --- ':- -- If' ..
A _ ,... _ ......._ 0_._ _1-_ - -1-- ,-.- BETHEL ROAD
/1 I - -~ --
,
i -J. '" iii tlJ~ t6 t!. d. J. J.
i 1 P rhe: ~/."" _'""":'.' '.___--' -----..---.-
.t~~ :~- :2" ~~ - g" 0 ~@. I ~
! I@I I 0 j
I r--l [in.<t Ql , I
I ~! J ~r ""') I
I i I J I~I Jit I
....1. r .~"F".o..'" ~ j ~[~ :
I I ." 1\ ~~ L
~:I I ----
~J .~
~ I I ~h~
~~ j ;a~8g~
I ~l>>~ J g~i-"'e;
.... ;;j ~~o~~
I Q"'lri,~
I
i
...............;..:
i ~~
II~ II
i _! /i _ _ I _ _ ~;i
!
i
I
t J rt
t : · it!
i I ~ ~
I . 8 r
-.. .-.. -.. ............. .......... .._...l. ... I
I ~~-~ J
"C,,~ J/ lJ.
d~ q I+~r-rl
~~.il u'J-....
em ~ ~6b
,
(
'{
\
'.....,
'-'-,
~
<11
00,
./
,/
(
I
I
.. ....... ................ ........n..._ ~.....__...... _______1__ ._.__._.... _.............
\
!
I
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
......... ........... .....m m ....._.. .......... __.... _...... _...... ..... _ ........;;1. ............
'"
i I
\Q~
fi~
i~~
I
11
2
n
c:
~illl
i ~~ I
s fS p! 5~
III~
m
r-
"'G
It
-a
I
i
T
!
-
I
..". m.......m. ...."....... .....m...m ...m..... ".....(.:~.. .mm..
\
I
!
tl B.U
l j~l
:i !th
.a:.l 9 ll.!!
~.. - i-;'Jr
frill
I.La
q;il~
l!;l~
S"!"1 c .
llrdl~
H~~
9 ~
I
,..... ,.......,.-
\
~
o
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
c
z
'"
\
,
Q
l>
~.
I
i
I
1
I
~
~)oc
~
<~
~
,,~
~t,
~ rJ()
\
I
i
J
/
~
[J1
o
o
fo
"'-"
~~
",""
!='l;;l.~JI:
~>""l'!I
b..,<D~
0"'" 0
:-'l"'~z
.."
....~
~Ei
[!i
q ~ ! II
~ ~ ~ ~~
d~i
[TI Wi;!
~ D
~ ; ~
l: 81
5 0:
m ~
!!ir
i
J
-,
T I
I II
I Ii
lOt i~
~~
~al
a E
i :!: ~
"
...
I
I l~
I
t ! I~-
....
10'"
-OL
~
1
J'
~u'
-I'
jI;
~
~:~
.z
!
I
I
I
; I
r
I
I
i
i
i
,
l,_ ___
--,-- --- '-'- ---- __1_
G:
~
CD
(It
504-.7
..9&4-B
4-9B.34-
....
t 5O'1.B
8 4-9&20
4-9B.08
503.7
4-.'.8..
4-97.79
~ 502.8 !21~
8 ~7.85 ~~
~~
~
<-V7.51 ......-{ f-........ ......-...
~ 49a.1
8 497.10
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q
""'"
~
......:J
496.96
4911I.5
49a.82
4ge.69 I~~CI n;.
B
S04.1
(}l
8
~
Ot
~
~ J
~~ ~SJ-J ".--J
I1i. __ ~ ~'
...!: ~ .~:\
~" ..\\
, " \ \
~I" \ \
~I .1\..... .... \
ts-oafA ~ . .
~:~
~&: \
\
\ I
II I!
J; III
[1--+
~
CD
Ot
I I .. otI
r- n2
114 n ~
r- c:
ll~~S !
i~ In; .~:I: I
I;t i I i~f
~ m
_ (tI ~
~ ."
I ! ~ ~
/
i
!
J
I
/
-_/ - !
~ ---- --
1__- I
---
-.......
~- ---
I
j
I
"
f
;:
~
II
~
I I
! I
I
6 ~ I I
~.~ I I
~q I
2 ~ i!
~' i I
~:; ! I
mm._. .m ... _m....... .m... ....I....t.mm .mm.. .......
I I
I I
'mm" .mmm. .. mm..m.m .m" .mm.+.....+._ m _.mmm_"" .
!
"
\1
\ '
.-
----
I
.m....f.-.+---- .m....
I
v
.-/
::..~
~........
~ ::::.:-.::_ ..._._._. ._...._.N.H .N.N._.M __ _._.N.M ~M'_""_" ._._._......
-......-
""
,."..,~
~. ... .... /.--""-
f~ ~
J I ~....;
.,. .GJJ
I ~~
----
Ii
~
o
(}l
o
Ot
~
~I &;~
~ fi' g -
!i ~8-
!! ~!I c
'lt~;' (Et ~. ( "I
lI;~ ~I I
!l !i'~'~ N
C. '<<
. orr ~
1C:r~
1l~. II ,ilJ
3 -'1I"c ............ --
"'10';" lr
ii~h ..
c
:< H
.lg
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
N
o
~
~
"'I
G:
, /'
//
~-
-
I I
I I
-.
I (f) I
0 I I I
I ~ I I
I CD J
j
- -1~~:11
II
C") ~
i lq ~
I Ig, f t ~~
. n , · %
~ a I 0 'n....m d
Pd. a C r- 11
I. ~... ~ z. ~ .~
!.. File ifi I-
ir-e
.~ ..,
.~ SID
II ..~ ..,
~l @ i,;l
11 !ii
$1 ~;;
g;i!ll i:.~'
Il Q~'g
i1 In
~:'IUct
h~s.~
';~~5 ~.
~""f"
Ii!i!
I SD21
I
-
- -
--- -
-
Ch
....
Z
W
c :I
Ill( >
0 0
a::: Q! (J)
0.. ..!
~
2i w
Cl
...J
W
Z
Z
Ill(
-.J :I:
-.J 0
<(
5:
0
<(
w
I
I-
<(
(f)
;., (f)
W
~ >-
<( <;(
I ::;: 3:
Z
0 ~
I in er
<: <;(
(') 0....
I f-
er
0
I 0....
W
w
I er
z IJ... LL
zO -.J
.0 Orn-.Jo @
III [jj<e<(N I if)
<e(:)S! I-
LJ (La::: CY Z
. >- LlJ w
...JZJ-> I > 0
(3goo . -.J
0::::> r-
~Ul-z xU U
tr:~zQ lox w
WOOlD I 10 (f)
>a:::~.c! .q-[]J
0..-(')
o (f)
WzZO .-l
tlJo<(w I .-l
0_0::: a.. <!
(LtlJl-(L :s:
00 w
Cl::tr:01- I 0
(LWI-if)
<;(
W
:r:
8E5~~~
:r::~I~:J
(fJ-w_ ~
::>"-rnQO
cr: '-.J
UW...JI'>,,-
.~:::::(f)w
ZI-tr:z>
~Vl~gai
- <e~<(
~ ::;:(:)
Ii'.I
et
~ ~
Eo- I ~
-... ~ ~
1 B
~
8 a !
'el
~ ~ I
~ Q ~
U
~
Q
i ~
z
~ ~
OJ
'"
~
'"
x
>-
:1
~~~
-''''ill
t: J. OJ
::J""
"''''
o "",a.
8"''''
Itl ~t--;
~"-"I""--
o ,. c:n
m w-
. is x
~ I <(
lJ... tLl..l-
r-
~
~
o
M
~
~
::J
d
~
~
..
"'"
I
l!1-
.ICJ
;..r=
II
"J
~ r-
......-4
~
0
z ~
0 ......-4
Z f- ~
0 u
0 in rn w
L{') n <C U1
C) ~
z
00 ~
lrF <{ Cj
D-U U '"
WW ~ ~
~~ CL ~
(/10 ....
lY >- "
00.. r- j:<
Wz
~O ::f
0.. en ~~..
00
IJ::lY ..,,,,
o..w ~.j.~
:::i0l I
"'''"
8"~
Itli""-_
m ('oJ
><'-""
g.~e
.6><
~it~
2 ~
i
UJ
l-
Z ..,.
W ~
C ~ ~ ~
c( E-t f ~
I ~
I} 0 0 ... ~ 2
- ~
tt - s
<< (f) !.
....J
...J D.. ~
:Ii >- =-
W LlJ ~ a ~
J: a U
...J
I- W ~
W ~
lD Z ,e.a
Z ~
c( ..
u I
J: Ii
(.) 0
il g
~
8Ei~~~
:r:.....JI--I-~:::J
(f1 ...
:=lU::W' :>
Il:: mOO
uw-!r<i~
-5:5: U1w
ZI--crz>
~UJWCo
t-Q'j1Il
o <t..::<(
:::!:C)
Q.
...
I
~
Q
-J
o
~z
<(0
~F
u<
XC
wZ:
:::)
zO
aLL
i/iz
-0
u-
wal
0::<
0-'-'>
0::0 'W
~~:;?;z
=::!I:;:;;:::J
u...w. ~
wlIl~O
z<i!r')Lt
i~oc~w
:::::;;VlWo>
1-_0
_ <! mal
~ :::;<<
'-'>
--'
--'
~
o
<(
w
I
I-
<(
Vl
(IJ
W
0::
l-
I-
<(
::;;:
!l
~
o
<C
o
D::::
z
a
[Ii
<(
(!)
-l
W
I
r-
w
CO
@
z
o
f-
U
W
(j)
-l
-l
<C
S:
o
<(
W
I
~
~Q
j~~
t:.j.~
-'=1
ONv-
o_m
ill"''''
.>(e'i-1
gwe
d.~ ..
.' :I: ~
~tl.u.
tf. IW.'.~' .' ....reclJ!l .1,Iw:.9Hi
CI'Ul:D4i . . . lJOH!P-I"\I,I,12J)r11; !.AlOUf;.vmlUt...,
. . .01. .... . 'lI:OII!I7'U1l: 1;J1ll ....'1$:1 ~ :no.o.po.Q, ~.o
~ '.. .' .... .
.po. .po. .po. .po. (J1 (J1 (J1 (J1
~ D::I CD CD 0 0 ..... .....
(J1 0 (J1 0 (J1 0 (J1
....
+
o
o
!
! i
.--.+-- -.- .-.- -"r
j
N
+
0
0
~ -l
~
~ i
i
~
~
I--l-
"I
0
~
c,..I
+
I--l- 0
"I 0
I-
I
I
~
+
o
o
.po.
~
J I'A.-uE
:Ie CI)
..~ ?
X ....
..L
I
I
--- -l- -
I
.po.
t>>
(J1
.po.
CD
(J1
(J1
o
o
(J1
o
(J1
lit
lilt. i
.~~. i
~ .
/
,~'-
(Il'lll- /'
'" UJ\lt)fRGR
~ _. TMPHOf
. KQL
lVA a. PARRISH V,20~J.P.80&6
572,COPPELL
(
;1
1..1
I.il'~. '. ".
I!..~
. ~~..'i4
!~~!il
III~I
a
10.
z ~ .-.-Z--'
a
$.
(J1
.....
o
(J1
.....
(J1
CU1.\iERTPLAN.k PROFILE
COPPELLROAD
STA1 +00 TO 5+50
RIll
,..... ......,..
==.~"lJlI
""""..CI:l~
RI.'. cal~.
~:r~
:M~
.....
u.lt
"N
q
CITY OF COPPEll., TX
BETHEL & COPPELL RDRECONSTRUCTlON
.po.
CD
o
.
IIIIIE
1/BII'Y '1lliLE'. Ii '.'''''J Inch... 011 OI!cItllCll
Q I, !Jll\ll. . rJQt _ InoTl on
. '.... C14luat _Ill.
R,I; __
CV-Ll'l\."l'I'-4IllMO'IAW;
N:;NJ KII 1'.oeo (LIIS Tee'" Uller: GI'Ii
rCl'Ul~Z~lN;\lF\D_INIls\CV-1RT-pp.-"""VE1 Z.DWlO LAlOVT: LII'I'OLIf-1
APR 01. 2D04 10:02:37 kill, LT1ic: 1.00 P51.TS: 1 l'MSI': 27ll.0. 270.0. 770.0
!l .
U1
+
o
o
~
CD
CJl
01
o
o
01
o
CJl
01
......
o
"'1f:.i!!l~~
l'>.NI~
!!u~~
~16 I
I tf.:.IIGG"llllmnBJI ~.@,.; 1
I I I;;;l~v ~ .- ~rr
I I _ JDiJ::lN l \ I
L ...J Ll. _...... ' ~ _ jJ.J \
GlJd::lNOO r I
To'cnra
Olt 'Dd 'n LIIB '1011
IN"l:lSOH>l N'v'SS\'H
I~
lLL9
'd"l .
, ~ 01 01 01
CD 0 0 ......
~ CJl 0 CJl 0
~
~
~
I
N
~
...
:3
c:
~
.a
:3
:l1
If
'"
......
+
0
0
C!i,iGlina
I-.~~~...
c......-..-..- ,(UNLr,.IN\l8.1)
I Hsn8 83J.3l'l s'W
00 .
~:"J ) 0
,~M v...r
'1] f\Vci8
9S't
lrllL'd
N
+
0
0
d
?i
(')
~~
"'0
n"
On
"llo
~=8
FfTI
r
r
~
~
~ C".l
Lj +
0
~ 0
~
~
~
0
~
~
-.....J
; :
i :
I -r----,
i :
r -+--1
~
+
0
0
tv
I
\'-.)
",
~(~
2 (.. :<:
= cg
~
Cl
^
MATCHLlNE STA 5+50
SEE SHEET 15
po,lJI
it!;!
...~
~~~~~ I
~~!~~ ~
i!~~"'i
~t~~~~
i )o.~~Sil
~ ~ ~2
· ~lll
I ~!~i
o
"'
fl
~ 01 01 01 ~
CD 0 0 ...... CD
CJl 0 CJl 0 CJl
r.n ItA ISSUE fit lII'lTE Dill.
:I: CPL.0324J
~ fllfJ9/c~
CLll
CAll
j$j::I:UI
.aiel
~-~
01 01 01 ..hi.
.--
D D ...... II ·
0 CJl 0 ~I
.t.)
0.
~q
N
zq
...,
ffi
~
N
~
q.
\IERFY!ICAl.E Bar 1. on. lnch on or1<llnal
o I draw1n!l. II nat on. Inch on
, , thle elieet, "~Just eccl"
PAVING PLAN &: PROFILE
COPPELL ROAD
STA 1 +00 TO 5+50
1111
........ .... N.....
1701 N._ ___UJI1
~T_1IiIIIl.;...aaa1
"'- - (214) UO-2lIQO
f... ~ (:I14ll_
NUl tlllC
.... IXXIIENT' 15 IBDIIfD FIll THE
_OI'_.__JIE
AI.IlttaIIIT g: 'I1IDi\ tt. IWU.T P.L
:r:s=~ ~-;&r~.
_ClIl_..-.
CIl
o ......
.., (J)
~
CITY OF COPPELl.. TX
BETHEL & COPPELL RD RECONSTRUCTION
FU _. 11m
CV-lRT -PP-PiWE12.dwg
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
REPORT PREPARED BY
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DA TED 26 NOVEMBER 2003
,"'/
-- -
~
~
Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc.
3100 Independence Parkway I Suite 311 #320 I Piano, Texas 75075
T 972.562.7672 I F 972.562.7673
26 November 2003
Mr. Craig Bond, P.E.
TranSystems Corporation
3010 LBJ Freeway, STE 990
Dallas, Texas 75234
Re: Waters ofthe United States Delineation and Section 404 Assessment
Bethel Road Drainage Improvements, City of Coppell, Texas
Tributary to Grapevine Creek Between Freeport Parkway and Coppell Road
N32057.250' W97000.543'
Dear Mr. Bond,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc. (IES) performed a survey for potential jurisdictional waters of the United
States on approximately 1,600 feet of a tributary to Grapevine Creek between Freeport Parkway and Coppell Road
along Bethel Road in the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas (Attachment A, Figure 1). The delineation of
waters of the United States along this corridor is provided in Attachment A, Figure 2. This delineation was
conducted to ensure compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A) for the proposed improvements to
Bethel Road and associated drainage.
INTRODUCTION
Agencies that regulate impacts to the nation's water resources within Texas include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Jurisdictional waters of the United States are protected under
guidelines outlined in Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA, in Executive Order 11990 (protection of Wetlands), and
by the review process of the TCEQ. The USACE has the primary regulatory authority for enforcing Section 404
requirements for waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The de[mition of waters of the United States, in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3, includes waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, wetlands, sloughs, wet meadows, or
natural ponds and all impoundments of waters otherwise defmed as waters of the United States. Also included are
wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands). The term adjacent is defined as
bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Jurisdictional wetlands are a category of waters of the United States and
have been defmed by the USACE as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SW ANCC) v. USACE,
changed the direction of federal regulation of isolated wetlands under the CW A by disallowing jurisdiction through
the "Migratory Bird Rule". Previously, the USACE assumed jurisdiction over isolated waters of the United States
based on its 1986 preamble stating that migratory birds used these habitats. The "Migratory Bird Rule" provided the
nexus to interstate commerce and thus protection under the CW A.
Mr. Craig Bond, P.E.
Bethel Road Improvements
26 November 2003
Page 2
The USACE has established guidance for determining between isolated and adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are
bordering, contiguous, or neighboring another water of the United States (specifically one that flows into a
navigable water) is considered adjacent. Additionally, wetlands that are within the 100-year floodplain of another
water of the United States are also considered adjacent. All other wetlands would be considered isolated, and not
jurisdictional under the CW A.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the Soil Survey of Dallas County, Texas, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic map, and an aerial photograph of the proposed project corridor were studied to identify possible waters of
the United States and areas prone to wetland development. All potential waters of the United States were delineated in
the field by Rudi Reinecke ofIES in accordance with the USACE guidelines on 20 November 2003.
Wetland determinations were performed on location using the methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The presence of jurisdictional wetlands is
determined by the positive indication of three criteria (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology, and hydric soils).
Potential jurisdictional boundaries for non-wetland water resources were delineated in the field at the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM). The 33 CFR 328.3(e) defines OHWM as the line on the shorelbank established by flowing
and/or standing water, marked by characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, erosion
shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter and debris, or other
appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
The areas of all potential waters of the United States were measured and their locations were noted on a field map of
the site (Attachment A, Figure 2). Photographs were also taken at representative points within the project corridor
(Attachment B).
RESULTS
The existing literature, soil survey and the USGS topographic map, provide conflicting data on where the
headwaters of the channel historically initiated. The soil survey illustrates the channel initiating nearly 1,500 feet
east of Coppell Road, which is downstream of this project. However, the USGS topographic map illustrates a blue
line for the tributary originating at Bethel Road, which is within the corridor. Additionally, the USGS topographic
map identified topographic relief throughout the corridor. This topographic relief identifies that there were drainage
patterns within the historical context of the map. The soil survey, USGS topographic map, and recent aerial
photographs do not illustrate any other waters of the United States within the corridor.
Soil Survey Map
Mr. Craig Bond, P.E.
Bethel Road Improvements
26 November 2003
Page 3
.
Field investigations focused on an
ephemeral drainage along Bethel Road
between Freeport Parkway and Coppell
Road. On-site surveys focused on
identifYing the beginning of the OHWM as
defmed by 33 CFR 328.3 (e). Historically,
the creek may have originated within the
1,600 foot corridor; however, there is a
OHWM present throughout the corridor.
This may be a result of the land use changes
from prairie or cross timber pristine
communities to farmland to urban
structures. Each of these shifts increase the
runoff and potentially peak flows in streams,
which also result in the development of an
OHWM.
End Project
'.9__-,-
. ,iI-'.
-_"',
~)
I
. .
J
./
Begin
Project
There is no evidence of a channel or
drainage feature west of Freeport Parkway.
Currently there is an OHWM throughout the
corridor, initiating at Freeport Parkway. It
is IES' professional opinion that the
USACE would have jurisdiction over this
ephemeral drainage due to the drainage
patterns illustrated on the USGS topographic map, the current OHWM, and the hydrologic connection to larger
jurisdictional streams.
USGS Topographic Map
The limits of the waters of the United States provided in Attachment A, Figure 2 are based on field work conducted
on 20 November 2003. The field surveys included marking the OHWM with flagging; however, the delineation was
recorded on a I-foot contour map. The tributary's OHWM ranged from 2 to 10 feet in width throughout the
corridor. The tributary ranged in width depending upon the gradient of the channel. Locations where the tributary
had a steeper gradient, the tributary was between 2 and 3 feet wide. Areas where the gradient was low, which
appeared to be areas associated with plunge pools~ were between 6 and 10 feet wide. The ephemeral stream was
1,723 feet long (0.222 acre below the OHWM) with the drainage flowing from west to east. No wetlands or other
waters of the United States were identified within the corridor.
The project corridor included a narrow riparian corridor that was no more than 25 feet on either side ofthe channel.
The riparian corridor was dominated by trees including cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black willow (Salix nigra),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), pecan (Carya
illinioensis), bitter pecan (Carya aquatica), boxelder (Acer negundo), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The
riparian corridor understory was dominated by annual ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), Johnsongrass (Sorghum
hale pense), Chinese ligustrum (Ligustrum sinense), waxleaf ligustrum (Ligustrum quihoui), silktree (Albizia
julibrissin), mustang grape (Vitis mustangensis), greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
CONCLUSIONS
The only potential water of the United States within the project site was a single unnamed ephemeral channel
(tributary to Grapevine Creek), which was approximately 1,723 linear feet and averaged between 2 and 10 feet wide
at the OHWM (0.222 acres total). Impacts to this channel would be subject to regulation by the USACE under
Section 404 of the CW A. Impacts to the channel resulting from public road improvements may be authorized under
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 - Linear Transportation Projects. Use of this NWP would require compliance with
all the conditions listed in Attachment C.
Mr. Craig Bond, P.E.
Bethel Road Improvements
26 November 2003
Page 4
Since the impacts would be greater than 0.1 acre to waters of the United States, the permittee must notify the
USACE under General Condition 13 of NWP 14. The notification should also include a mitigation plan that
includes how the project avoided, minimized, and compensated for impacts. Special consideration must be placed
on condition E, which states, "The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the crossing." In the
notification submittal, the permittee will have to demonstrate that the improvements to Bethel Road cannot be
accomplished without impacting the natural channel beyond the footprint of the road improvements. It is also
important to understand that the US ACE does have the power to apply discretionary interest in a project and require
the permittee to submit for an Individual Permit if they determine that the project does not have minimal impacts to
jurisdictional waters functions or values.
IES appreciates the opportunity to work with you, TranSystems Corporation, and the City ofCoppell on this project,
and hope we may be of assistance to you in the future. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please do
not hesitate to contact me at 972/562-7672 (rreinecke@iesolutionsinc.com).
Sincerely,
Integrated Environmental Solutions, Inc.
~'/~
Rudi K. Reinecke
Wetland Ecologist
Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
Figures
),'~' '--.<
I ' Continental r O~.
i;::.'~ V"IIA\i-vi~--=- ~~~;~
.r- Y;<-~ ~ 'e' '-' /"
I _ y-----/~. '...,
E-c \~ -'-r----:-<-;,..l "
!!! r-~' ,-2? ~ 2;-. ~ :'" ~ ,~4ecker-bFt'/
!~- ~unci-G;:'OVe'Rd ~ i E Iflound Grovej3&
. -........1 ~~
(,%
&.0
, o/~
-------~ i"& ^
/x':<vr
"./ "
ctI
o
--~
_~_~_~'J-
D D ~ "
~ i~ / ,~ ~~l==i~~?~~
~~~ ........ 1-, Parkway Blvd' ~ C ' (\) ~=ffi-,~---':;~"
8;~~e;~> -~~~-~~~~~ff'-' '~~
weatt Rd z; ~ " r. =m- ..... c ", ___ ,'..., ~~ Q.,.
--'---:-~~ '-tt--CY--_ N, ,', ell CL..x-:-c--~'
, ~~c; '< _ ~_ Z .J-~ E Sarlct'y Lake ~d' · .'~~
~:~f~~~= ~i:':~:::J~~~J~l)~;
Project . =-KaY'ecSt~ 3. "7::1---:n~./ a:,.- _-:.~-<, .,-, on \..1'L-.
Area ~~~~~~~~~~~.!:-~~g;~:-1'-~~-~~~~~::,>
'__-Gopp II e he' Rd ,,-C.-' -nl ~,-c. ',~' "'3 B~!!...LiI1~~cF
s e , ..,____~-o:-~,<:: '-=, ..,--r --'.
~ JJ 0 ,/' '
Burns St a. a: " S Northlake Rd
"-Sbuthwestern Blvd
C);
-~
~\ ~. ,
. " ,~_....:. /-:
'<..... <9--" /-, ~//
, "/~ ~ ~-V;;;t,
f;lighlan~!// e \?;f4:..-~~a 0
· 0.\6~,y -..-
'-.\\s\~~'
;~- ::::..> Deforest Rd
Vista Ridge Malll:l~<
--",
._("}-- _~'" Gotton Rd
'0
c
:::l
-<
c:
:::l
CD
:D
a.
Airline Dr
C
--J-
Cii
>., ...
<!) 0 en
> a: OJ
<{: > .S
~-> ~
.... 0):
..... ,-
N. en
z. .
, I
~ 2th 'St
'-----.......,.-- "
CP
1- () ~~
L:r-~-cij3----";, r
'~ S'
(fl CD
. c: :D
CD a.
~ ~
<!)
c
::J
notO(
',_ __,'\ta,n ~/r
.~
Qj ,__ _ ~.:.~!:lerry R~_ ~----c /
\<
N
+
,(- -; . ,---"
-=_'2~osswo~Ln -::-::,
,---":'--'---. :.-----~- '. -
o
,
o
.
Mapping Data: ESRI, 2002
Figure 1, Site Location
2
3 Kilometers
,
2 Miles
Gat~~~ Dr
Q;
(])
OLL
o
'<l"
<Il
Q;
Q;
0::2
o
~
o
o
C')
Z+g
(\J
C>
en
o
o
0 C>
0 ~
::J <1l
(]) U
t:
:5 ::J
'0 0
lD
~ >.
(])
(]) 2:
1ii ::J
~ en
D
(J)
....
Q)
Cti
:s:
co
c
o
:g
'0
(J)
oc
::J
J
ATTACHMENT B
Representative Photographs
0
0
C')
~+g
C\J
0
L1)
0
0
~
0 0
en
c
,2 en
Cil ~
<.> ::i <ll
.Q <I> U
.s:;; ~ c
a. :::>
<ll '0 0
0, CD
en >.
.9 Q; <I>
0 ~ ~
.s:;; :::>
0- (f)
G I 0
-'~
~ ..~- ~~(~
/.".:'.,
.,
.~;i)~ ~_ ..
.
Photograph 7 Photograph 8
Photograph 15
Photograph 16
Photograph 23
Photograph 24
Photograph 29
Photograph 30
ATTACHMENT C
Nationwide Permit 14 - Linear Transportation Projects
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 14
Linear Transportation Projects
Effective Date: March 18, 2002
Activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement oflinear transportation crossings (e.g.,
highways, railways, trails, airport runways, and taxiways) in waters of the US, including wetlands, if the activity meets
the following criteria:
a. This NWP is subject to the following acreage limits:
(1) For linear transportation projects in non-tidal waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss of greater
than lI2-acre of waters ofthe US; or
(2) For linear transportation projects in tidal waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss of greater than 1/3-
acre of waters of the US.
b. The permittee must notify the Di~gineer in ~~o~dance with General Condition 13 ifany of the following
. . "'-, . -~---...._.~..._~....'..............-........~
cntena are met:
(1) The discharge causes the loss of greater than lllO-acre of waters of the US; or
(2) There is a discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands; ~-
c. The notification must include a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset permanent losses of waters of the US to
ensure that those losses result only in minimal adverse effects to the aquatic environment and a statement describing
how temporary losses will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable;
d. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and stream riffle and pool complexes, the'notiticaJion
must include a delineation of the affected special aquatic sites;'
e. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the crossing;
f. This permit does not authorize stream channelization, and the authorized activities must not cause more than minimal
changes to the hydraulic flow characteristics of the stream, increase flooding, or cause more than minimal degradation of
water quality of any stream (see General Conditions 9 and 21);
g. This permit cannot be used to authorize non-linear features commonly associated with transportation projects, such
as vehicle maintenance or storage buildings, parking lots, train stations, or aircraft hangars; and
h. The crossing is a single and complete project for crossing waters of the US. Where a road segment (i.e., the shortest
segment of a road with independent utility that is part of a larger project) has multiple crossings of streams (several
single and complete projects) the Corps will consider whether it should use its discretionary authority to require an
Individual Permit. (Sections 10 and 404)
Note: Some discharges for the construction of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining
equipment may be eligible for an exemption from the need for a Section 404 permit (see 33 CPR 323.4).
NATIONWIDE PERMIT GENERAL CONDmONS
The following General Conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by an NWP to be valid:
1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.
2. Proper Maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure
public safety.
3. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in
effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the
ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are
encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow.
4. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life-cycle movements ofthose species of
aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain low flow
conditions.
habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the USFWS and NMFS or their world wide web pages at
http://www. fws. gov /rgendspp/ endspp. html and http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/overview/es.htmlrespecti vely.
.~2. HI!!oric Prol!.~r:ties. No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National
R:eglster of Historic Places is authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of33 CFR part 325,
Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic
properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer
that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized.
Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation
Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). For activities that may affect historic properties
listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places, the notification must state which historic
property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location ofthe historic property.
13. Notification.
(a) Timing; where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer with a
preconstruction notification (PCli) as early as possible. The District Engineer must determine ifthe notification is
complete within 30 days of the date of receipt and can request additional information necessary to make the PCN
complete only once. However, ifthe prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the
District Engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the notification is still incomplete and the PCN review process
will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the District Engineer. The prospective
permittee shall not begin the activity:
(I) Until notified in writing by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special
conditions imposed by the District or Division Engineer; or
(2) Ifnotified in writing by the District or Division Engineer that an Individual Permit is required; or
(3) Unless 45 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt ofthe complete notification and the prospective
permittee has not received written notice from the District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to
proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33
CFR 330.5( d)(2).
(b) Contents of Notification: The notification must be in writing and include the following information:
(I) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee;
(2) Location of the proposed project;
(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects
the project would cause; any other NWP(s), Regional General Permit(s), or Individual Permit(s) used or intended to be
used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. Sketches should be provided when necessary
to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided
result in a quicker decision.);
(4) For NWPs 7, 12,@18, 21, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43, the PCN must also include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites, including wetlands, vegetated shallows (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, seagrass beds), and riffle and
pool complexes (see paragraph 13(t));
(5) For NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and Maintenance), the PCN must include information regarding the original design
capacities and configurations of those areas of the facility where maintenance dredging or excavation is proposed;
(6) For NWP 14 (Linear Transportation Projects), the PCN must include a compensatory mitigation proposal to offset
permanent losses ofw!lters>g!th~,U~~~.I~~L'\.~~~e.m.~~!..1~~~~1J?~te~E2~~losses of~<;!e~9fthe uS ,"'(111 ~
mim~ll1zed to th~ maximum ext!<Ut m;!lcpcalz!.:;
(7) For NWP 2 I (Surface Coal Mining Activities), the PCN must include an Office of Surface Mining (OSM) or state-
approved mitigation plan, if applicable. To be authorized by this NWP, the District Engineer must determine that the
activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse environmental effects are minimal both
individually and cumulatively and must notify the project sponsor of this determination in writing;
(8) For NWP 27 (Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities), the PCN must include documentation of the prior
condition of the site that will be reverted by the permittee;
(9) For NWP 29 (Single-Family Housing), the PCN must also include:
3
'-"'"
General Condition 13. A letter containing the requisite information may also be used.
(d) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the District Engineer will determine
whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse
environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. The prospective permittee may submit a proposed
mitigation plan with the PCN to expedite the process. The District Engineer will consider any proposed compensatory
mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the
aquatic environment of the proposed work are minimal. If the District Engineer determines that the activity complies with
the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, after
considering mitigation, the District Engineer will notify the permittee and include any conditions the District Engineer
deems necessary. The District Engineer must approve any compensatory mitigation proposal before the permittee
commences work. If the prospective permittee is required to submit a compensatory mitigation proposal with the PCN,
the proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a compensatory
mitigation plan with the PCN, the District Engineer will expeditiously review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan.
The District Engineer must review the plan within 45 days of receiving a complete PCN and determine whether the
conceptual or specific proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration of the
compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the District Engineer to be minimal, the District Engineer will
provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response will state that the project can proceed under the terms
and conditions of the NWP.
Ifthe District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then the
District Engineer will notify the applicant either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization under the NWP
and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an Individual Permit; (2) that the project is
authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse
effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP with specific
modifications or conditions. Where the District Engineer determines that mitigation is required to ensure no more than
minimal adverse effects occur to the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within the 45-day PCN period.'
The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a requirement that the applicant submit a
mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level. When
conceptual mitigation is included, or a mitigation plan is required under item (2) above, no work in waters of the US will
occur until the District Engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan.
(e) Agency Coordination: The District Engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies
concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to
reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level.
For activities requiring notification to the District Engineer that result in the loss of greater than lI2-acre of waters of
the US, the District Engineer will provide immediately (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other
expeditious manner) a copy to the appropriate Federal or state offices (USFWS, state natural resource or water quality
agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception ofNWP 37,
these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the District
Engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. If so contacted by an agency, the
District Engineer will wait an additional IS calendar days before making a decision on the notification. The District
Engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to
the resource agency, except as provided below. The District Engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated
with each notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered. As required by section 30S(b)(4)(B) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the District Engineer will provide a response to NMFS
within 30 days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations. Applicants are encouraged to
provide the Corps multiple copies of notifications to expedite agency notification.
(f) Wetland Delineations: Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by
the Corps (For NWP 29 see paragraph (b)(9)(iii) for parcels less than (1/4-acre in size). The permittee may ask the Corps
to delineate the special aquatic site. There may be some delay if the Corps does the delineation. Furthermore, the 45-day
period will not start until the wetland delineation has been completed and submitted to the Corps, where appropriate.
14. Compliance Certification. Every permittee who has received NWP verification from the Corps will submit a signed
5
stream, but the District Engineers may require slightly wider vegetated buffers to address documented water quality or
habitat loss concerns. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site, the Corps will determine the
appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., stream buffers or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the
aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where vegetated buffers are determined to be the most appropriate
form of compensatory mitigation, the District Engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts.
(g) Compensatory mitigation proposals submitted with the' 'notification" may be either conceptual or detailed. If
conceptual plans are approved under the verification, then the Corps will condition the verification to require detailed
plans be submitted and approved by the Corps prior to construction ofthe authorized activity in waters of the US.
(h) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in -lieu fee arrangements or separate activity-specific
compensatory mitigation. In all cases that require compensatory mitigation, the mitigation provisions will specify the
party responsible for accomplishing and/or complying with the mitigation plan.
20. Spawning Areas. Activities, including structures and work in navigable waters of the US or discharges of dredged or
fill material, in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities
that result in the physical destruction (e.g., excavate, fill, or smother downstream by substantial turbidity) of an important
spawning area are not authorized.
21. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the activity must be designed to maintain
preconstruction downstream flow conditions (e.g., location, capacity, and flow rates). Furthermore, the activity must not
permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to
impound waters) and the structure or discharge of dredged or fill material must withstand expected high flows. The
activity must, to the maximum extent practicable, provide for retaining excess flows from the site, provide for maintaining
surface flow rates from the site similar to preconstruction conditions, and provide for not increasing water flows from the
project site, relocating water, or redirecting water flow beyond preconstruction conditions. Stream channelizing will be
reduced to the minimal amount necessary, and the activity must, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce adverse
effects such as flooding or erosion downstream and upstream of the project site, unless the activity is part of a larger.
system designed to manage water flows. In most cases, it will not be a requirement to conduct detailed studies and
monitoring of water flow.
This condition is only applicable to projects that have the potential to affect waterflows. While appropriate measures
must be taken, it is not necessary to conduct detailed studies to identify such measures or require monitoring to ensure
their effectiveness. Normally, the Corps will defer to state and local authorities regarding management of water flow.
22. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic
system due to the acceleration of the passage of water, and/or the restricting its flow shall be minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. This includes structures and work in navigable waters of the US, or discharges of dredged or fill
material.
23. Waterfowl Breeding Areas. Activities, including structures and work in navigable waters of the US or discharges of
dredged or fill material, into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
24. Removal of Temporary Fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to
their preexisting elevation.
25. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-designated marine sanctuaries,
National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Wild and Scenic Rivers, critical habitat for Federally listed threatened
and endangered species, coral reefs, state natural heritage sites, and outstanding national resource waters or other
waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the
District Engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The District Engineer may also designate additional
critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment.
(a) Except as noted below, discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the US are not authorized by NWPs 7,
12, 14, 16, 17,21,29, 31,35, 39,40,42,43, and 44 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters,
7
events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a
source of water for the stream. Runofffrom rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow.
Farm Tract A unit of contiguous land under one ownership that is operated as a farm or part of a farm.
Flood Fringe: That portion of the I OO-year floodplain outside of the floodway (often referred to as "floodway fringe").
F100dway: The area regulated by Federal, state, or local requirements to provide for the discharge of the base flood so
the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is no more than a designated amount (not to exceed one foot as set by
the National Flood Insurance Program) within the 100-year floodplain.
Independent Utility: A test to determine what constitutes a single and complete project in the Corps regulatory
program. A project is considered to have independent utility ifit would be constructed absent the construction of other
projects in the project area. Portions of a multi-phase project that depend upon other phases of the project do not have
independent utility. Phases of a project that would be constructed even if the other phases were not built can be
considered as separate single and complete projects with independent utility.
Intermittent Stream: An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times ofthe year, when groundwater
provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runofffrom rainfall
is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.
Loss of Waters of the US: Waters of the US that include the filled area and other waters that are permanently
adversely affected by flooding, excavation, or drainage because of the regulated activity. Permanent adverse effects
include permanent above-grade, at-grade, or below-grade fills that change an aquatic area to dry land, increase the
bottom elevation ofa waterbody, or change the use ofa waterbody. The acreage ofloss of waters of the US is the
threshold measurement of the impact to existing waters for determining whether a project may qualify for an NWP; it is
not a net threshold that is calculated after considering compensatory mitigation that may be used to offset losses of
aquatic functions and values. The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated.
Impacts to ephemeral streams are not included in the linear foot measurement of loss of stream bed for the purpose of
determining compliance with the linear foot limits ofNWPs 39, 40, 42, and 43. Waters ofthe US temporarily filled,
flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to preconstruction contours and elevations after construction, are not
included in the measurement of loss of waters of the US.
Non-tidal Wetland: A non-tidal wetland is a wetland (i.e., a water of the US) that is not subject to the ebb and flow of
tidal waters. The definition of a wetland can be found at 33 CFR 328.3(b). Non-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidal waters
are located landward of the high tide line (i.e., spring high tide line).
Open Water: An area that, during a year with normal patterns of precipitation, has standing or flowing water for
sufficient duration to establish an ordinary high water mark. Aquatic vegetation within the area of standing or flowing
water is either non-emergent, sparse, or absent. Vegetated shallows are considered to be open waters. The term" open
water" includes rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. For the purposes of the NWPs, this term does not include ephemeral
waters.
Perennial Stream: A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located
above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runofffrom
rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow.
Pennanent Above-grade Fill: A discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, including wetlands, that
results in a substantial increase in ground elevation and permanently converts part or all of the waterbody to dry land.
Structural fills authorized by NWPs 3, 25, 36, etc. are not included.
Preservation: The protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aquatic resources in perpetuity through the
implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation may include protection of upland areas
adjacent to wetlands as necessary to ensure protection and/or enhancement of the overall aquatic ecosystem.
Restoration: Re-establishment of wetland and/or other aquatic resource characteristics and function(s) at a site where
they have ceased to exist, or exist in a substantially degraded state.
Riffle and Pool Complex: Riffle and pool complexes are special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Riffle and
pool complexes sometimes characterize steep gradient sections of streams. Such stream sections are recognizable by
their hydraulic characteristics. The rapid movement of water over a course substrate in riffles results in a rough flow, a
turbulent surface, and high dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Pools are deeper areas associated with riffles. A sbwer
stream velocity, a streaming flow, a smooth surface, and a finer substrate characterize pools.
Single and Complete Project The term" single and complete project" is defined at 33 CFR 330.2(i) as the total project
proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership or other association of owners/developers (see
9
APPENDIX D
MAPPED SOIL SERIES IN PROJECT AREA
SOIL SERIES DATA
WILSON SERIES
The Wilson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable
soils that formed in alkaline clayey sediments. These soils are on nearly level to gently
sloping stream terraces or terrace remnants on uplands. Slopes are mainly less than 1
percent but range from 0 to 5 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, smectitic, thermic Oxyaquic Vertic Haplustalfs
TYPICAL PEDON: Wilson silt loam--cropland. (Colors are for moist soil unless
otherwise stated.)
Ap--O to 5 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam, gray (10YR 5/1) dry; weak fine
granular structure; massive when dry; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; common fine
roots; moderately acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick)
Bt--5 to 20 inches; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) silty clay, gray (10YR 5/1) dry; moderate
medium angular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm, very sticky and very plastic;
few fine roots; few fine pores; thin continuous clay films 1/2 unit of value darker than
interior of peds; vertical cracks 1/2 inch wide are filled with material from the Ap
horizon; slightly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (10 to 20 inches thick)
Btssgl--20 to 32 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) silty clay, light brownish gray (2.5Y
612) dry; moderate medium angular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm, very
sticky and very plastic; few fine roots; few fine pores; few slickensides; few medium
pressure faces; thin continuous clay films on surface of peds; vertical cracks 1/4 inch
wide partly filled with material from above; few fine crystals of gypsum; few fine
calcium carbonate concretions; slightly alkaline; diffuse wavy boundary.
Btssg2--32 to 65 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 512) silty clay, light brownish gray (2.5Y
612) dry; weak coarse angular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm, very sticky
and very plastic; few fine roots; few fine pores; few slickensides; patchy clay films on
surface of peds; common fine crystals of gypsum; few fine masses of calcium carbonate;
slightly alkaline; gradual smooth boundary. (combined Btss subhorizons are 25 to 60
inches thick)
BCkss--65 to 80 inches; olive gray (5Y 512) silty clay, light gray (5Y 712) dry; weak
coarse angular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm, very sticky and very plastic;
few fine roots; few fine pores; few slickensides; few coarse masses of calcium carbonate;
few small fragments of clay; very slightly effervescent; moderately alkaline.
TYPE LOCATION: Kaufman County, Texas; 4 miles southeast of the intersection of
Texas Highway 34 and U. S. Highway 175 in Kaufman, 0.15 mile northeast and 0.2 mile
southeast of intersection of county road and U. S. Highway 175, 150 feet southwest in
field.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness ranges from 60 to more than 80
inches. The weighted average clay content of the upper 20 inches of the argillic horizon
ranges from 35 to 50 percent. When dry, cracks at least 1/4 inch wide extend from the top
of the argillic horizon through a thickness of 12 inches or more within the upper 50
inches of the soil. Slickensides and/or wedged-shaped aggregates and pressure faces
range from few to common and begin at a depth of 14 to 26 inches. Linear extensibility is
greater than 2.5 inches (6 cm) within 40 inches (100 cm) of the soil surface. COLE
ranges from 0.07 to 0.10 in the upper 50 inches of the argillic horizon. The surface layer
is variable in thickness with a series of micro crests and troughs in the Bt horizon that
range from 4 to about 20 feet apart. Redoximorphic features are contemporary in the
upper Btl horizon and are mainly relic in the lower part of the Bt horizon. The soil does
not have aquic soil conditions in the upper 20 inches in most years.
The A horizon is less than 10 inches thick in more than 50 percent of the pedon, but it is
as much as 15 inches thick in some subsoil troughs. It has hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of
3 to 5, and chroma of 1 or 2. Texture is loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, clay loam or their
gravelly counterparts. Siliceous pebbles and small cobbles range from 0 to 35 percent. It
is massive and hard or very hard when dry but is soft or friable with structure when
moist. Some pedons have a thin E horizon in subsoil troughs. Reaction ranges from
moderately acid to neutral.
The Bt horizon has hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of 2 to 4, and chroma of 1 or less.
Texture is clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay. Some pedons have iron
concentrations in shades of brown or yellow that range from few to common. Siliceous
pebbles range from 0 to about 15 percent by volume. Reaction ranges from slightly acid
to slightly alkaline.
The Btss horizon has hue of lOYR to 5Y, value of 3 to 7, and chroma of 2 or less. Iron
concentrations in shades of yellow, brown or olive range from none to common. Texture
is commonly silty clay or clay and less commonly silty clay loam or clay loam. Reaction
ranges from moderately acid to slightly alkaline and is typically noncalcareous.
The BCk or BC horizon has colors in shades of gray or brown. Redoximorphic features
of these colors and in other shades of yellow, red or olive range from few to many.
Texture is clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay. Some pedons have fragments or
thin strata of shale or marl. These materials make up less than 35 percent of the matrix.
Reaction ranges from neutral to moderately alkaline. Concretions and masses of calcium
carbonate range from none to common.
The C horizon, where encountered, is shale or marl or stratified layers of shale, marl and
clay.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no competing series. Similar soils are the Dacosta,
Herty, Lufkin, Mabank, and Steedham series. Dacosta soils have a mollic epipedon and
are members of the hyperthermic family. Herty, Lufkin and Mabank soils have an abrupt
texture change between the A and Bt horizon. In addition, Herty soils are in the udic
moisture regime. Steedham soils have sola from 20 to 40 inches thick, and are well
drained.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Wilson soils are on nearly level to gently sloping terraces
or remnants of terraces. Slope gradients are 0 to 5 percent but dominantly less than 1
percent. The soil formed in alkaline clayey alluvium. Mean annual temperature ranges
from 64 to 70 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation ranges from 32 to 45 inches.
Frost free days range from 220 to 270 days and elevation ranges from 250 to 700 feet.
Thornthwaite P-E indices from 50 to 70.
GEOGRAPHICALL Y ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Bonham, Burleson,
Crockett, Houston Black, Lufkin, Mabank, and Normangee series. Bonham soils have
mollic epipedons. Burleson soils are on similar positions. Burleson and Houston Black
soils are clayey to the surface and have slickensides (Vertisols). Crockett and Normangee
soils have Bt horizons with chroma of more than 2. Bonham, Houston Black, Crockett
and Normangee soils are on slightly higher positions above Wilson. Lufkin soils are on
similar or slightly lower concave positions. Mabank soils are on similar positions.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained. Permeability is very
slow. Runoff is low on 0 to I percent slopes, medium on 1 to 3 percent slopes, and high
on 3 to 5 percent slopes. Very slow internal drainage. The soil is seasonally wet and is
saturated in the surface layer and upper part of the Bt horizon during the winter and
spring seasons for periods of 10 to 30 days.
USE AND VEGETATION: Wilson soils are cropped to cotton, sorghums, small grain,
and corn. Many areas are now idle or are used for unimproved pasture. Original
vegetation was tall prairie grasses, mainly andropogon species, and widely spaced motts
of elm and oak trees. Most areas that are not cropped have few to many mesquite trees.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Mainly in the Blackland Prairies of Texas, with
small areas in Oklahoma. The soil is extensive, probably exceeding 1,000,000 acres.
AXTELL SERIES
The Axtell series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable
soils on Pleistocene terraces. The soil formed in slightly acid to alkaline clayey
sediments. Slopes are dominantly 0 to 5 percent, but range up to 12 percent.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine, smectitic, thermic Udertic Paleustalfs
TYPICAL PEDON: Axtell very fine sandy loam - post oak savannah. (Colors are for
dry soil unless otherwise stated.)
A--O to 3 inches; brown (lOYR 5/3) very fine sandy loam, dark brown (lOYR 4/3) moist;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; very hard, very friable; many fine and coarse
roots; common fine pores; slightly acid; clear smooth boundary. (3 to 10 inches thick)
E--3 to 8 inches; very pale brown (lOYR 7/3) very fine sandy loam, pale brown (lOYR
6/3) moist; weak fine subangular blocky structure; hard, very friable; many fine and
coarse roots; common fine pores; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (0 to 9 inches
thick)
Bt--8 to 21 inches; reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay loam, yellowish red (5YR 5/6) moist;
weak medium and coarse angular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm; sticky and
plastic; many fine and coarse roots between peds; few fine pores; few pressure faces;
common medium distinct light brownish gray (lOYR 612) iron depletions and few
medium distinct strong brown (lOYR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; very strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary. (6 to 15 inches thick)
Btssl--21 to 29 inches; light gray (lOYR 712) clay, light brownish gray (lOYR 6/2)
moist; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; few wedge-shaped peds;
extremely hard, very firm; sticky and plastic; common fine, medium, and few coarse
roots; few fine pores; thin patchy clay films on surface of peds; common pressure faces;
few slickensides; few fine iron-manganese concretions; common medium and coarse
distinct yellowish red (5YR 5/6) and few fine distinct strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) masses
of iron accumulation; strongly acid; gradual wavy boundary.
Btss2--29 to 37 inches; grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) clay loam, dark grayish brown (lOYR
412) moist; moderate medium and coarse angular blocky structure; few wedge-shaped
peds; extremely hard, very firm; sticky and plastic; common fine and medium roots; few
fine pores; common medium pressure faces; few small slickensides; few fine iron-
manganese concretions; few medium faint dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) masses of
iron accumulation; moderately acid; clear wavy boundary. (combined thickness of Btss
horizons is 15 t 045 inches)
Btkl--37 to 53 inches; light brownish gray (lOYR 612) clay loam, grayish brown (lOYR
512) moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate coarse
angular blocky; extremely hard, very firm; sticky and plastic; common fine and medium
roots; nearly continuous clay films along surfaces of prisms; few fine pressure faces; 7
percent coatings and masses of calcium carbonate along surfaces of peds; few fine streaks
of gypsum; few fine iron-manganese concretions; common fine distinct yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/6) masses of iron accumulation; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 20 inches
thick)
Btk2--53 to 75 inches; light gray (2.5Y 7/2) clay loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2)
moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate coarse
angular blocky; extremely hard, very firm, sticky and plastic; common fine and medium
roots; few pressure faces; about 3 percent coatings and masses of calcium carbonate
along surfaces of peds; few fine streaks of gypsum; few vertical streaks of dark yellowish
brown soil materials; few fine iron-manganese concretions; common medium and coarse
distinct brownish yellow (lOYR 6/8) and few fine distinct yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6)
masses of iron accumulation; moderately alkaline; gradual wavy boundary. (0 to 26
inches thick)
B't--75 to 80 inches; distinctly and coarsely mottled light gray (2.5Y 712), brownish
yellow (lOYR 6/8) and yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) clay loam; moderate medium and
coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate medium and coarse angular blocky;
extremely hard, very firm, sticky and platic; few fine roots; few small slickensides; few
coats of calcium carbonate on surfaces of some peds; few streaks of gypsum; few fine
and coarse siliceous pebbles; few fine iron-manganese concretions; slightly alkaline.
TYPE LOCATION: Navarro County, Texas; from the intersection of State Highway 22
and Farm Road 55 in Blooming Grove; 1.1 miles south on Farm Road 55; 3.8 miles west-
southwest on county road to flood prevention structure; 250 feet west of the west channel
below flood prevention structure; 100 feet north in post oak timber. Latitude 32 degrees,
02 minutes 33 seconds N, Longitude 96 degrees, 43 minutes 57 seconds W.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness is more than 80 inches. The
boundary between the A and Bt horizons is abrupt over the subsoil crests and clear over
the subsoil troughs, and the texture change is abrupt. The solum contains 0 to 5 percent
siliceous pebbles, with some pedons containing up to 35 percent pebbles on and in the
surface layer. Depth to secondary carbonates ranges from 30 to 65 inches in most pedons.
The 10- to 40- inch particle size control section is clayey with average clay content
ranging from 35 to 50 percent. COLE ranges from 0.07 to 0.10 in the upper 20 inches of
the Bt horizon and the potential linear extensibility is greater than 2.5 inches in the upper
50 inches of the soil.
The A and E horizons average less than 10 inches thick in more than 50 percent of the
pedon, but they are as much as 15 inches thick over subsoil troughs. The A horizon has
hue of lOYR, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 2 to 4. The E horizon has value 1 to 3 units
more than the A horizon. The A and E horizons are fine sandy loam, very fine sandy
loam, loam, or their gravelly counterparts. Reaction ranges from strongly acid to slightly
acid.
The upper part of the Bt horizon has hue of 2.5YR, 5YR or 7.5YR, value of 4 to 6, and
chroma of 3 to 8. Redoximorphic features in shades of red, brown or gray are in most
pedons or the matrix is mottled with these colors. Texture is clay loam or clay. Reaction
is very strongly acid or strongly acid, and the base saturation ranges from 50 to 75
percent.
The lower part of the argillic horizon is mottled in hue of 2.5YR to 10YR and are in
shades of red, brown, yellow, and gray. In some pedons, the lower Bt horizons have hue
of 2.5Y or 5Y. Texture is clay loam or clay. Reaction ranges from strongly acid to
slightly acid.
The Btk horizon, where present, has hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of 5 to 7, and chroma of
2 to 6. Redoximorphic features are in shades of brown or yellow. Texture is clay loam or
clay. Reaction ranges from neutral to moderately alkaline. Visible carbonates range from
less than 2 to about 10 percent by volume and are in the form of concretions, masses and
coatings on the surface of peds.
The B't and BCk horizons, where present, have colors mainly in shades of gray or brown.
They are sandy clay loam, clay loam, or clay. Reaction ranges from moderately acid to
moderately alkaline and they are calcareous in some pedons. Calcium carbonate
concretions and gypsum crystals range from none to common.
COMPETING SERIES: These are the Bremond, Crockett, Crosstell, Kurten, Navo,
Tabor and Zulch series. Similar soils are the Annona, Edge, Gredge, Normangee, Payne,
Tabor, and Woodtell series. Bremond soils are moderately acid to neutral in the upper Bt
horizon and formed in alkaline clayey sediments. Crockett soils are moderately acid to
neutral in the upper Bt horizon, have base saturation of 75 to 100 percent, and formed in
alkaline marine clays and shales under prairie vegetation. Cross tell soils have solum
thickness of 40 to 60 inches and are underlain by weathered shale and sandstone of the
Cretaceous Woodbine formation. Kurten soils have solum thickness of 40 to 60 inches.
Navo, Normangee and Payne soils do not have an abrupt textural change between the A
and Bt horizon and in addition, Payne soils have COLE of less than 0.07. Tabor soils
have A horizons more than 10 inches thick in more than half the pedon and have matrix
colors in hue yellower than 7.5YR in the Btl horizon. Zulch soils have solum thickness
from 30 to 40 inches and are underlain by weathered shale of the Yegua formation. The
Annona and W oodtell soils are not dry in any part of the moisture control section for 90
cumulative days in most years. The Edge and Gredge soils do not have vertic properties,
have a significant decrease in clay within 35 inches of the surface and Edge soils are less
than 60 inches thick.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Axtell soils are on broad, nearly level to strongly sloping
stream terraces and terrace remnants about 50 to 300 feet above the present streams. Also
included are terrace remnants on stream divides in erosional uplands. These sediments
are mainly of Pleistocene Age. Slopes are mainly between 0 and 5 percent, but range to
12 percent. The soil formed in clayey alluvium. The mean annual temperature ranges
from about 64 to 70 degrees F., and mean annual precipitation ranges from from 32 to 42
inches. Frost free days range from 240 to 270 days and elevation ranges from 200 to 600
feet. Thornthwaite P-E indices ranges from 54 to 66.
GEOGRAPHICALL Y ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the competing Crockett and
Tabor series and the Lufkin, Rader, and Wilson series. Crockett soils are on slightly
higher upland positions. Lufkin and Wilson soils are in similar or slightly lower terrace
positions and are dominated by colors with chroma 2 or less. Tabor soils are on positions
similar Axtell. Rader soils are on similar or slightly lower positions, and have fine-loamy
control sections.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained. Permeability is very
slow. Runoff is Iowan slopes less than 1 percent, medium on 1 to 3 percent slopes, and
high on 3 to 5 percent slopes.
USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly cultivated in the past, but now in pasture. Some
areas are farmed to corn, grain sorghum, or small grains. Native vegetation is post oak,
blackjack oak, hickory, red cedar, greenbriar; grasses include mid and tall grasses such as
little bluestem, big bluestem, indiangrass, panicum and paspalum.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Mainly in east-central Texas, but small areas are in
Oklahoma. This soil is of moderate extent.
APPENDIX E
CORRESPONDENCE WITH TEXAS HISTORIC
COMMISSION
THE
CITY.OF
COPPELL
~~~M.:o::.,~ *.W! W~~d:P~
" ~~~ _!.:.~~ CJ
{ ~~ ~ q
~ 1\ S" ~
r:~ f:' r~ ~.: ~ ~V-~ 'D:
t~ l~"'Jl.-f~t. ~ ,...
~EB 04 2004
February 2, 2004
, (VAf' "nORICAL cOMrIIS':;:Cu
. '.. ,) 1],_'
!\1r Mark Denton
Director of State and Federal Review
Archeological Division
Texas Historical Commission
PO Box 12276
Austin, Texas 7871 I
RE. Bethel Road I
ST 99-05
1937 Culvert
Dear !'vir Denton:
The City of Coppell is designing construction plans for Bethel Road I The project will
include channel improvements along 1900 linear feet of Stream G 1. We are in the
process of preparing an individual permit for review by the US Army Corps of
Engineers Design options for the channel are under evaluation, and the width and depth
of the channel have not been determined We do know that the existing culvert under
Bethel Road will have to be replaced The culvert was apparently constructed in 1937
and may have historic significance
The project is located in the Grapevine Quadrangle and the limits of the project are
shown on the attached USGS map Photographs of the culvert are enclosed Please
review these photographs and let me know how we need to proceed with the design of the
channel improvements
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at
972-304-7019 Your consideration of this matter is appreciated
Sincerely,
~~a::lov
~~;a~dl11ator
NO HISTORiC
PROPERTIES AFFECTED
PROJEC;T MAY PH -~L
t',y __ /P:d;~L~._.:'.~~....
lor F. La'Nerence Oaks
Stale Historic Presw~ti(\~ Offj?~rui
Dale ..:? . ../....~.._........ . ..,
- _._____ - _. _.. . 0"-- ". . ~.~
Enclosures
2S5 ~)ARKV\/A( * F:=) 80X <;'::72 * CC)PPE~LL Tx 7':019 * 1EL 972/462 ::>022.. FAX 972/304 3673