The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-068 Cooper Creek USACE September 05,2025 Report No. 2025-068 INFORMAL STAFF REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: This informal staff report will provide information regarding the City's participation in the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) study of the Cooper Creek watershed through the Continuing Authorities Program(CAP) Section 205 and include an overview of the results of the study. BACKGROUND: The USACE CAP Section 205 is a program which allows the USACE to partner with a nonfederal sponsor to plan and construct small flood damage reduction projects that have not previously been specifically authorized by Congress and are not part of a larger project. The purpose of the CAP is to plan and implement projects of limited size, cost, scope and complexity. The City of Denton Environmental Services and Sustainability Department submitted a letter on June 29, 2023, to the USACE Fort Worth requesting assistance for a study to address flooding in the Cooper Creek watershed. The USACE Fort Worth District chose Cooper Creek for a feasibility study authorized under the CAP Section 205. The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate potential flood reduction projects at a high level. If a cost-effective project was identified,it would advance to design and construction under the CAP. The estimated cost of the study was $600,000. CAP requires a cost share of a 50% match after the first $100,000. The Federal share for this project was estimated at $350,000 and the City of Denton's share of the projected costs was estimated at $250,000. On March 5, 2024, City Council approved agenda item ID24-243 which allowed the City Manager to enter into a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) with the USACE and contribute $250,000 for the City's portion of the cost share. DISCUSSION: As USACE staff performed the feasibility analysis within Cooper Creek, City staff offered continual support and input, regularly met with USACE staff to provide information on historic flooding issues, utility conflicts, real estate acquisition processes, previous drainage studies, etc. During the feasibility analysis USACE staff created updated hydrologic and hydraulic models of the Cooper Creek watershed. The USACE also evaluated a wide variety of potential actions to reduce flood damage near the creek; including additional regional detention, channel improvements, bridge and culvert modifications, elevating at-risk structures, and structure buyouts. The feasibility analysis was concluded in February 2025. The USACE was unable to find potential projects that achieved a positive cost-benefit ratio score and recommended that no Federal action be taken. The USACE completed a closeout report that included the updated hydrologic and hydraulic models developed by the USACE that were provided to City staff for future use. It is important to note that many of the alternatives considered would have a positive effect on reducing flood risk within the Cooper Creek watershed, and while the alternatives did not achieve a positive cost-benefit ratio using the USACE methodology they may still inform future capital September 05,2025 Report No. 2025-068 improvements in the area. Upon close-out of the feasibility analysis $118,030.43 in unspent funds were returned to the City. ATTACHMENTS: CAP Section 205 Fact Sheet ID 24-243 ordinance Cooper Creek CAP 205 Closeout Report STAFF CONTACT: Mike Linder Senior Engineer—Engineering Mike.Lindergcityofdenton.com (940)-349-8942 PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS: Engineering STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE REPORT: 6 hours CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM me Section 205 -Small Flood Risk Management Projects U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Scope and Authority • The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)can partner with a non- federal sponsor(sponsor)to plan and construct small flood damage reduction projects that have not previously been specifically authorized by Congress and are not part of a larger project. •Projects may be structural(e.g.,levees,flood walls,diversion - channels,pumping plants and bridge modifications)or non-structural - (e.g.,floodproofing,relocation of structures and flood warning } systems). •Authority is provided by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of - 1948(P.L. 80-858),as amended,also referred to as Section 205 under the Continuing Authorities Program. Project Development Process •Feasibility Study-Upon receipt of a written Letter of Intent(LOI) from a potential sponsor and when funding is available,USACE initiates a Federal Interest Determination, at federal expense,to determine if a potential project meets program requirements and federal participation is justified. If a federal interest is verified, a feasibility study will be advanced to identify and comprehensively evaluate alternatives and recommend a plan for implementation. If the feasibility study cost exceeds $100,000,USACE and sponsor sign a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement and a project management plan that describes the study cost share arrangement, study scope, schedule, and study cost estimate(See Project Costs). •Design and Construction-A project is approved for construction if the detailed feasibility study determines it is technically feasible,environmentally acceptable,and cost effective.Before engineering design and construction can begin, USACE and sponsor negotiate and sign a Project Partnership Agreement that describes the cost share arrangement and operations and maintenance responsibilities(See Project Costs). Project Costs The maximum federal expenditure per project is$15 million,including feasibility study,design and construction costs. Feasibility Study •The study is initiated with up to$100,000 in federal funds. •Costs exceeding$100,000 are cost shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent sponsor. • Sponsor's cost share may include cash,work-in-kind or a combination of both. Design and Construction •Most projects are cost-shared 65 percent federal and 35 percent sponsor but sponsor cost could increase to 50%with high costs for lands, easements,rights-of-way,relocations, and dredged material disposal areas(LERRDs). • Sponsor must provide all LERRDs needed for project construction and maintenance. •At least 5 percent of the cost share requirement must be provided in cash. Operation and Maintenance • Sponsor is responsible for all project operation and maintenance costs when the project is completed. How to Request a Project A template LOI to request a study under the Continuing Authorities Program is available on the USACE Planning web site. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Questions?Contact your local USACE District: https://usace.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7344e62432694199af7790aa47a32fdd ORDINANCE NO. 24-243 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FORT WORTH DISTRICT UNDER THE CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM (CAP) SECTION 205 TO STUDY,DETERMINE CAUSE, AND FIND A SOLUTION TO THE FLOODING OF COOPER CREEK AND THE ADJACENT AREAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the CAP supports smaller community projects and allows the Fort Worth District to plan, design, and construct projects of limited size, cost, scope, and complexity; and WHEREAS, the CAP is ideal for funding projects for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, erosion control, and streambank protection; and WHEREAS, Cooper Creek, located in the Elm Fork Trinity River watershed, is experiencing accelerated erosion, loss of riparian trees, and damage to private property during large rain events; and WHEREAS,the City of Denton submitted a Letter of Request on June 29, 2023,to the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)providing notice of the issue and requesting assistance; and WHEREAS,the USACE has conducted a site investigation and determined federal interest in the project; and WHEREAS, the US Department of the Army (Government) has projected the cost of the study to be $600,000, the grant provides funding for the first $100,000, and requires the Non- Federal Sponsor to cost share at 50 percent(50%) of the remaining costs estimated at$250,000; WHEREAS, any additional funds above the estimated amount must be remitted to the Government after final accounting, and any excess funds shall be refunded subject to the availability of funds; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The recitals are hereby incorporated and made part of this ordinance for all purposes. SECTION 2. The City Manager or their designee is hereby authorized to execute the agreement with the Department of the Army attached hereto as Exhibit"A" authorizing the City, through the Environmental Services and Sustainability Department, to spend its share of the cost of the study in accordance with the authorized purposes cited in the agreement. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. The motion to approve this ordinance was made by (�C&.a Kjjpr'bI . and seconded by Ct, 11 c Gt , the ordinance was passed and approved by the following vote Aye Nay Abstain Absent Mayor Gerard Hudspeth: J Vicki Byrd,District 1: Brian Beck,District 2: ✓ Paul Meltzer,District 3: ✓ Joe Holland,District 4: L/ Brandon Chase McGee,At Large Place 5: Chris Watts,At Large Place 6: PASSED AND APPROVED this the s day of ...), , 2024. GERA HUDSPETH,MAYOR ATTEST: JESUS SALAZAR, CITY SECRETARY B JJ-� �� O• '�' APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 4L •• .;�•�}� MACK REINWAND, CITYDigitally signed ATTORNEY e SDk do-corn,do-citycMenton, do-cod ad,ou-Department Users and Groups,ou-General Government, 2KeIler auu4Kler�Yofdent comBY: p0 ' AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FOR THE COOPER CREEK, CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM SECTION 205 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , by and between the Department of the Army (hereinafter the "Government"), represented by the District Commander for Fort Worth District(hereinafter the "District Commander") and the City of Denton, Texas (hereinafter the"Non-Federal Sponsor"),represented by the City Manager. WITNESSETH,THAT: WHEREAS, Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended(33 U.S.C. 701 s)] authorizes the study of Cooper Creek located within the city of Denton, Texas to address flooding issues; WHEREAS, Section 105(a) of the Water Resources Development Act(WRDA) of 1986, as amended(33 U.S.C. 2215(a)), specifies the cost-sharing requirements; and WHEREAS, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor have the full authority and capability to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS A. The term"Study"means the activities and tasks required to identify and evaluate alternatives and the preparation of a Detailed Project Report that, as appropriate, recommends a coordinated and implementable solution for the flooding issues on Cooper Creek and the adjacent areas in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. B. The term"study costs"means all costs incurred by the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement that are directly related to performance of the Study and cost shared in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The term includes the Government's costs for preparing the project management plan("PMP"); for plan formulation and evaluation, including costs for economic, engineering, real estate, and environmental analyses; for preparation of a floodplain management plan if undertaken as part of the Study; for preparing and processing the Detailed Project Report; for supervision and administration; for Agency Technical Review and other review processes required by the Government;and for response to any required Independent External Peer Review; and the Non-Federal Sponsor's creditable costs for in-kind contributions, if any. The term does not include any costs for dispute resolution;participation by the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor in the Study Coordination Team to discuss significant issues and actions;audits; an Independent External Peer Review panel, if required; or negotiating this Agreement. The term also does not include the first$100,000 of costs for the Study incurred by the Government,whether before or after execution of this Agreement. C. The term"PMP"means the project management plan, and any modifications thereto, developed in consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,that specifies the scope, cost,and schedule for Study activities and tasks,including the Non-Federal Sponsor's in-kind contributions, and that guides the performance of the Study. D. The term"in-kind contributions"means those planning activities (including data collection and other services)that are integral to the Study and would otherwise have been undertaken by the Government for the Study and that are identified in the PMP and performed or provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement and in accordance with the PMP. E. The term"maximum Federal study cost"means the $1,500,000 Federal cost limit for the Study, unless the Government has approved a higher amount, and includes the first $100,000 of costs for the Study incurred by the Government. F. The term"fiscal year"means one year beginning on October 1'and ending on September 30th of the following year. ARTICLE II- OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES A. In accordance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies,the Government shall conduct the Study using funds appropriated by the Congress and funds provided by the Non- Federal Sponsor. In carrying out its obligations under this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with all the requirements of applicable Federal laws and implementing regulations, including but not limited to, if applicable, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended(42 U.S.C.2000d), and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto;the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6102); and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and Army Regulation 600-7 issued pursuant thereto. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute 50 percent of study costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and provide required funds in accordance with Article III. 1. After considering the estimated amount of credit for in-kind contributions, if any,that will be afforded in accordance with paragraph C. of this Article and the first$100,000 of the costs incurred by the Government that are excluded from study costs,the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written estimate of the amount of funds required from the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its share of study costs for the remainder of the initial fiscal year of the Study. No later than 15 calendar days after such notification,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the full amount of such funds to the Government in accordance with Article III.C. 2. No later than August 1st prior to each subsequent fiscal year of the Study, the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written estimate of the amount of funds required from the Non-Federal Sponsor during that fiscal year to meet its cost share. No later than September 1st prior to that fiscal year,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the full amount of such required funds to the Government in accordance with Article III.C. C. The Government shall include in study costs and credit towards the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of such costs,the costs, documented to the satisfaction of the Government,that the Non-Federal Sponsor incurs in providing or performing in-kind contributions, including associated supervision and administration, after the effective date of this Agreement. Such costs shall be subject to audit in accordance with Article VI to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability, and crediting shall be in accordance with the following procedures, requirements, and limitations: 1. As in-kind contributions are completed and no later than 60 calendar days after such completion,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government appropriate documentation, including invoices and certification of specific payments to contractors, suppliers, and the Non-Federal Sponsor's employees. Failure to provide such documentation in a timely manner may result in denial of credit. The amount of credit afforded for in-kind contributions shall not exceed the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of study costs. 2. No credit shall be afforded for interest charges, or any adjustment to reflect changes in price levels between the time the in-kind contributions are completed, and credit is afforded; for the value of in-kind contributions obtained at no cost to the Non-Federal Sponsor; for any items provided or performed prior to completion of the PMP; or for costs that exceed the Government's estimate of the cost for such item. D. To the extent practicable and in accordance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies,the Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on contract solicitations prior to the Government's issuance of such solicitations; proposed contract modifications, including change orders; and contract claims prior to resolution thereof. Ultimately,the contents of solicitations, award of contracts, execution of contract modifications, and resolution of contract claims shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. E. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not use Federal program funds to meet any of its obligations under this Agreement unless the Federal agency providing the funds verifies in writing that the funds are authorized to be used for the Study. Federal program funds are those funds provided by a Federal agency,plus any non-Federal contribution required as a matching share therefor. F. Except as provided in paragraph C. of this Article,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not be entitled to any credit or reimbursement for costs it incurs in performing its responsibilities under this Agreement. G. If Independent External Peer Review(IEPR) is required for the Study, the Government shall conduct such review in accordance with Federal laws,regulations, and policies. The Government's costs for an IEPR panel shall not be included in study costs or the maximum Federal study cost. H. In addition to the ongoing,regular discussions between the parties regarding Study delivery,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor may establish a Study Coordination Team to discuss significant issues or actions. The Government's costs for participation on the Study Coordination Team shall not be included in the study costs but shall be included in calculating the maximum Federal study cost. The Non-Federal Sponsor's costs for participation on the Study Coordination Team shall not be included in study costs and shall be paid solely by the Non-Federal Sponsor without reimbursement or credit by the Government. ARTICLE III -PROVISION OF NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE A. As of the effective date of this Agreement, study costs are projected to be $600,000, with the Government's share of such costs projected to be $350,000 and the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of such costs projected to be $250,000, which includes creditable in-kind contributions projected to be $0, and the amount of funds required to meet its cost share projected to be $250,000. These amounts are estimates only that are subject to adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor. B. The Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with monthly reports setting forth the estimated study costs and the Government's and Non-Federal Sponsor's estimated shares of such costs; costs incurred by the Government, using both Federal and Non-Federal Sponsor funds,to date;the amount of funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor to date; the estimated amount of any creditable in-kind contributions; and the estimated remaining cost of the Study. C. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide to the Government required funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED, Fort Worth District(M2)to the District Commander, or verifying to the satisfaction of the Government that the Non-Federal Sponsor has deposited such required funds in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government, with interest accruing to the Non-Federal Sponsor, or by providing an Electronic Funds Transfer of such required funds in accordance with procedures established by the Government. D. The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor to cover the non-Federal share of study costs as those costs are incurred. If the Government determines at any time that additional funds are needed from the Non-Federal Sponsor to cover the Non-Federal Sponsor's required share of study costs,the Government shall provide the Non- Federal Sponsor with written notice of the amount of additional funds required. Within 60 calendar days of such notice,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of such additional funds. E. Upon completion of the Study and resolution of all relevant claims and appeals, the Government shall conduct a final accounting and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with the written results of such final accounting. Should the final accounting determine that additional funds are required from the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Non-Federal Sponsor,within 60 calendar days of written notice from the Government, shall provide the Government with the full amount of such additional funds by delivering a check payable to "FAO, USAED,Fort Worth District (M2)to the District Commander, or by providing an Electronic Funds Transfer of such required funds in accordance with procedures established by the Government. Should the final accounting determine that the Non-Federal Sponsor has provided funds in excess of its required amount,the Government shall refund the excess amount, subject to the availability of funds. Such final accounting does not limit the Non-Federal Sponsor's responsibility to pay its share of study costs, including contract claims or any other liability that may become known after the final accounting. ARTICLE IV- TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. Upon 30 calendar days written notice to the other party, either party may elect at any time,without penalty,to suspend or terminate future performance of the Study. Furthermore, unless an extension is approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works),the Study may be terminated if a Detailed Project Report is not completed for the Study within 3 years after the effective date of this Agreement. B. In the event of termination,the parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study. To provide for this eventuality,the Government may reserve a percentage of available funds as a contingency to pay the costs of termination, including any costs of resolution of contract claims, and resolution of contract modifications. C. Any suspension or termination shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligation incurred. Any delinquent payment owed by the Non-Federal Sponsor pursuant to this Agreement shall be charged interest at a rate,to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal to 150 per centum of the average bond equivalent rate of the 13 week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned immediately prior to the beginning of each additional 3 month period if the period of delinquency exceeds 3 months. ARTICLE V- DISPUTE RESOLUTION As a condition precedent to a parry bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that parry must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation,they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to the parties. Each parry shall pay an equal share of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI -MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT A. The parties shall develop procedures for the maintenance by the Non-Federal Sponsor of books,records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses for a minimum of three years after the final accounting. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall assure that such materials are reasonably available for examination, audit, or reproduction by the Government. B. The Government may conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, audits of the Study. Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with applicable Government cost principles and regulations. The Government's costs of audits for the Study shall not be included in study costs but shall be included in calculating the maximum Federal study cost. C. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government shall allow the Non-Federal Sponsor to inspect books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses maintained by the Government, or at the Non-Federal Sponsor's request, provide to the Non-Federal Sponsor or independent auditors any such information necessary to enable an audit of the Non-Federal Sponsor's activities under this Agreement. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall pay the costs of non-Federal audits without reimbursement or credit by the Government. ARTICLE VII -RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement,the Government, and the Non-Federal Sponsor each act in an independent capacity, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other. Neither parry shall provide,without the consent of the other party, any contractor with a release that waives or purports to waive any rights a party may have to seek relief or redress against that contractor. ARTICLE VIII -NOTICES A. Any notice,request, demand, or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and delivered personally or mailed by registered or certified mail, with return receipt, as follows: If to the Non-Federal Sponsor: City Manager City of Denton 215 E.McKinney St, Denton, TX 76201 If to the Government: District Commander U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth,TX 76102 B. A party may change the recipient or address to which such communications are to be directed by giving written notice to the other party in the manner provided in this Article. ARTICLE IX - CONFIDENTIALITY To the extent permitted by the laws governing each parry,the parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of exchanged information when requested to do so by the providing parry. ARTICLE X-THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, BENEFITS, OR LIABILITIES Nothing in this Agreement is intended,nor may be construed,to create any rights, confer any benefits, or relieve any liability, of any kind whatsoever in any third person not a party to this Agreement. ARTICLE XI- OBLIGATIONS OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS The Non-Federal Sponsor intends to fulfill fully its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing herein shall constitute,nor be deemed to constitute, an obligation of future appropriations by the City of Denton,where creating such an obligation would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitation on committing future appropriations. If the Non-Federal Sponsor is unable to, or does not, fulfill its obligations under this Agreement,the Government may exercise any legal rights it has to protect the Government's interests. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement,which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Commander. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CITY OF DENTON BY: BY: Calvin A.Kroeger Sara Hensley Colonel,U.S.Army City Manager Commanding DATE: DATE: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND CITY OF DENTON,TEXAS FOR THE COOPER CREEK, CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM SECTION 205 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 5L day of KPy�1 ,g2A, by and between the Department of the Army (hereinafter the"Government"), represented by the District Commander for Fort Worth District(hereinafter the"District Commander")and the City of Denton, Texas (hereinafter the"Non-Federal Sponsor"), represented by the City Manager. WITNESSETH, THAT: WHEREAS, Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701 s)] authorizes the study of Cooper Creek located within the city of Denton, Texas to address flooding issues; WHEREAS, Section 105(a)of the Water Resources Development Act(WRDA)of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)), specifies the cost-sharing requirements; and WHEREAS,the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor have the full authority and capability to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS A. The term"Study"means the activities and tasks required to identify and evaluate alternatives and the preparation of a Detailed Project Report that, as appropriate, recommends a coordinated and implementable solution for the flooding issues on Cooper Creek and the adjacent areas in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. B. The term"study costs"means all costs incurred by the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement that are directly related to performance of the Study and cost shared in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The term includes the Government's costs for preparing the project management plan ("PMP"); for plan formulation and evaluation, including costs for economic, engineering, real estate, and environmental analyses; for preparation of a floodplain management plan if undertaken as part of the Study; for preparing and processing the Detailed Project Report; for supervision and administration; for Agency Technical Review and other review processes required by the Government;and for response to any required Independent External Peer Review;and the Non-Federal Sponsor's creditable costs for in-kind contributions, if any. The term does not include any costs for dispute resolution; participation by the Government and Non-Federal Sponsor in the Study Coordination Team to discuss significant issues and actions;audits;an Independent External Peer Review panel, if required; or negotiating this Agreement. The term also does not include the first$100,000 of costs for the Study incurred by the Government,whether before or after execution of this Agreement. C. The term"PMP"means the project management plan, and any modifications thereto, developed in consultation with the Non-Federal Sponsor,that specifies the scope,cost,and schedule for Study activities and tasks, including the Non-Federal Sponsor's in-kind contributions,and that guides the performance of the Study. D. The term "in-kind contributions"means those planning activities (including data collection and other services)that are integral to the Study and would otherwise have been undertaken by the Government for the Study and that are identified in the PMP and performed or provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor after the effective date of this Agreement and in accordance with the PMP. E. The term "maximum Federal study cost"means the $1,500,000 Federal cost limit for the Study, unless the Government has approved a higher amount, and includes the first$100,000 of costs for the Study incurred by the Government. F. The term "fiscal year"means one year beginning on October 11 and ending on September 30th of the following year. ARTICLE II - OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES A. In accordance with Federal laws, regulations, and policies,the Government shall conduct the Study using funds appropriated by the Congress and funds provided by the Non- Federal Sponsor. In carrying out its obligations under this Agreement,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with all the requirements of applicable Federal laws and implementing regulations, including but not limited to, if applicable, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d),and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6102); and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and Army Regulation 600-7 issued pursuant thereto. B. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall contribute 50 percent of study costs in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and provide required funds in accordance with Article III. 1. After considering the estimated amount of credit for in-kind contributions, if any, that will be afforded in accordance with paragraph C. of this Article and the first$100,000 of the costs incurred by the Government that are excluded from study costs, the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written estimate of the amount of funds required from the Non-Federal Sponsor to meet its share of study costs for the remainder of the initial fiscal year of the Study. No later than 15 calendar days after such notification, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the full amount of such funds to the Government in accordance with Article III.C. 2. No later than August 1'prior to each subsequent fiscal year of the Study,the Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with a written estimate of the amount of funds required from the Non-Federal Sponsor during that fiscal year to meet its cost share. No later than September 1 It prior to that fiscal year,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the full amount of such required funds to the Government in accordance with Article ❑I.C. C. The Government shall include in study costs and credit towards the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of such costs, the costs,documented to the satisfaction of the Government, that the Non-Federal Sponsor incurs in providing or performing in-kind contributions, including associated supervision and administration, after the effective date of this Agreement. Such costs shall be subject to audit in accordance with Article VI to determine reasonableness, ailocability, and allowability, and crediting shall be in accordance with the following procedures, requirements, and limitations: 1. As in-kind contributions are completed and no later than 60 calendar days after such completion,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government appropriate documentation, including invoices and certification of specific payments to contractors, suppliers, and the Non-Federal Sponsor's employees. Failure to provide such documentation in a timely manner may result in denial of credit. The amount of credit afforded for in-kind contributions shall not exceed the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of study costs. 2. No credit shall be afforded for interest charges, or any adjustment to reflect changes in price levels between the time the in-kind contributions are completed,and credit is afforded; for the value of in-kind contributions obtained at no cost to the Non-Federal Sponsor; for any items provided or performed prior to completion of the PMP; or for costs that exceed the Government's estimate of the cost for such item. D. To the extent practicable and in accordance with Federal laws, regulations,and policies, the Government shall afford the Non-Federal Sponsor the opportunity to review and comment on contract solicitations prior to the Government's issuance of such solicitations; proposed contract modifications, including change orders; and contract claims prior to resolution thereof. Ultimately, the contents of solicitations,award of contracts, execution of contract modifications, and resolution of contract claims shall be exclusively within the control of the Government. E. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall not use Federal program funds to meet any of its obligations under this Agreement unless the Federal agency providing the funds verifies in writing that the funds are authorized to be used for the Study. Federal program funds are those funds provided by a Federal agency, plus any non-Federal contribution required as a matching share therefor. F. Except as provided in paragraph C. of this Article, the Non-Federal Sponsor shall not be entitled to any credit or reimbursement for costs it incurs in performing its responsibilities under this Agreement. G. If Independent External Peer Review(IEPR) is required for the Study,the Government shall conduct such review in accordance with Federal laws,regulations,and policies. The Government's costs for an IEPR panel shall not be included in study costs or the maximum Federal study cost. H. In addition to the ongoing, regular discussions between the parties regarding Study delivery, the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor may establish a Study Coordination Team to discuss significant issues or actions. The Government's costs for participation on the Study Coordination Team shall not be included in the study costs but shall be included in calculating the maximum Federal study cost. The Non-Federal Sponsor's costs for participation on the Study Coordination Team shall not be included in study costs and shall be paid solely by the Non-Federal Sponsor without reimbursement or credit by the Government. ARTICLE III - PROVISION OF NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE A. As of the effective date of this Agreement, study costs are projected to be$600,000, with the Government's share of such costs projected to be $350,000 and the Non-Federal Sponsor's share of such costs projected to be$250,000, which includes creditable in-kind contributions projected to be $0, and the amount of funds required to meet its cost share projected to be $250,000. These amounts are estimates only that are subject to adjustment by the Government and are not to be construed as the total financial responsibilities of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor. B. The Government shall provide the Non-Federal Sponsor with monthly reports setting forth the estimated study costs and the Government's and Non-Federal Sponsor's estimated shares of such costs; costs incurred by the Government, using both Federal and Non-Federal Sponsor funds, to date; the amount of funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor to date;the estimated amount of any creditable in-kind contributions; and the estimated remaining cost of the Study. C. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide to the Government required funds by delivering a check payable to"FAO, USAED, Fort Worth District(M2)to the District Commander, or verifying to the satisfaction of the Government that the Non-Federal Sponsor has deposited such required funds in an escrow or other account acceptable to the Government,with interest accruing to the Non-Federal Sponsor,or by providing an Electronic Funds Transfer of such required funds in accordance with procedures established by the Government. D. The Government shall draw from the funds provided by the Non-Federal Sponsor to cover the non-Federal share of study costs as those costs are incurred. If the Government determines at any time that additional funds are needed from the Non-Federal Sponsor to cover the Non-Federal Sponsor's required share of study costs, the Government shall provide the Non- Federal Sponsor with written notice of the amount of additional funds required. Within 60 calendar days of such notice,the Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide the Government with the full amount of such additional funds. E. Upon completion of the Study and resolution of all relevant claims and appeals,the Government shall conduct a final accounting and furnish the Non-Federal Sponsor with the written results of such final accounting. Should the final accounting determine that additional funds are required from the Non-Federal Sponsor, the Non-Federal Sponsor,within 60 calendar days of written notice from the Government, shall provide the Government with the full amount of such additional funds by delivering a check payable to"FAO, USAED, Fort Worth District (M2)to the District Commander, or by providing an Electronic Funds Transfer of such required funds in accordance with procedures established by the Government. Should the final accounting determine that the Non-Federal Sponsor has provided funds in excess of its required amount, the Government shall refund the excess amount, subject to the availability of funds. Such final accounting does not limit the Non-Federal Sponsor's responsibility to pay its share of study costs, including contract claims or any other liability that may become known after the final accounting. ARTICLE IV-TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION A. Upon 30 calendar days written notice to the other party, either party may elect at any time,without penalty, to suspend or terminate future performance of the Study. Furthermore, unless an extension is approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army(Civil Works),the Study may be terminated if a Detailed Project Report is not completed for the Study within 3 years after the effective date of this Agreement. B. In the event of termination,the parties shall conclude their activities relating to the Study. To provide for this eventuality, the Government may reserve a percentage of available funds as a contingency to pay the costs of termination, including any costs of resolution of contract claims, and resolution of contract modifications. C. Any suspension or termination shall not relieve the parties of liability for any obligation incurred. Any delinquent payment owed by the Non-Federal Sponsor pursuant to this Agreement shall be charged interest at a rate,to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal to 150 per centum of the average bond equivalent rate of the 13 week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned immediately prior to the beginning of each additional 3 month period if the period of delinquency exceeds 3 months. ARTICLE V - DISPUTE RESOLUTION As a condition precedent to a party bringing any suit for breach of this Agreement, that party must first notify the other party in writing of the nature of the purported breach and seek in good faith to resolve the dispute through negotiation. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute through negotiation, they may agree to a mutually acceptable method of non-binding alternative dispute resolution with a qualified third party acceptable to the parties. Each party shall pay an equal share of any costs for the services provided by such a third party as such costs are incurred. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse the parties from performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE VI - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND AUDIT A. The parties shall develop procedures for the maintenance by the Non-Federal Sponsor of books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses for a minimum of three years after the final accounting. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall assure that such materials are reasonably available for examination, audit,or reproduction by the Government. B. The Government may conduct, or arrange for the conduct of, audits of the Study. Government audits shall be conducted in accordance with applicable Government cost principles and regulations. The Government's costs of audits for the Study shall not be included in study costs but shall be included in calculating the maximum Federal study cost. C. To the extent permitted under applicable Federal laws and regulations, the Government shall allow the Non-Federal Sponsor to inspect books, records, documents,or other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses maintained by the Government, or at the Non-Federal Sponsor's request, provide to the Non-Federal Sponsor or independent auditors any such information necessary to enable an audit of the Non-Federal Sponsor's activities under this Agreement. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall pay the costs of non-Federal audits without reimbursement or credit by the Government. ARTICLE VII - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES In the exercise of their respective rights and obligations under this Agreement, the Government, and the Non-Federal Sponsor each act in an independent capacity, and neither is to be considered the officer, agent,or employee of the other. Neither party shall provide, without the consent of the other party, any contractor with a release that waives or purports to waive any rights a party may have to seek relief or redress against that contractor. ARTICLE VIII -NOTICES A. Any notice, request, demand, or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if in writing and delivered personally or mailed by registered or certified mail,with return receipt, as follows: If to the Non-Federal Sponsor: City Manager City of Denton 215 E. McKinney St, Denton, TX 76201 If to the Govemmcnt: District Commander U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth,TX 76102 B. A party may change the recipient or address to which such communications are to be directed by giving written notice to the other party in the manner provided in this Article. ARTICLE IX-CONFIDENTIALITY To the extent permitted by the laws governing each parry,the parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of exchanged information when requested to do so by the providing party. ARTICLE X-THIRD PARTY RIGHTS,BENEFITS,OR LIABILITIES Nothing in this Agreement is intended,nor may be construed,to create any rights,confer any benefits,or relieve any liability,of any kind whatsoever in any third person not a party to this Agreement. ARTICLE XI-OBLIGATIONS OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS The Non-Federal Sponsor intends to fulfill fully its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing herein shall constitute,nor be deemed to constitute,an obligation of future appropriations by the City of Denton,where creating such an obligation would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitation on committing future appropriations. If the Non-Federal Sponsor is unable to,or does not,fulfill its obligations under this Agreement,the Government may exercise any legal rights it has to protect the Government's interests. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Agreement,which shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the District Commander. DEPARThfl NET OF THE ARMY CITY OF DENT BY:�i`I'f• BY: Calvin A.Kroeger Hensley Fir Colonel,U.S.Army City Manager J'*" Commanding DATE: DE ofAeft XOtf- DATE: /1+,4kcX 2�6 262 Closeout Report CAP - Cooper Creek, Denton, Texas, Section 205 Fort Worth District, Southwestern Division 135 February 2025 (NOTE: This page intentionally left blank) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FORT WORTH DISTRICT P. O. BOX 17300 FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 Closeout Report CAP — Cooper Creek, Denton, Texas, Section 205 Fort Worth District, Southwestern Division February 2025 (NOTE: This page intentionally left blank) Executive Summary This report examines the need for construction of flood risk management measures along Cooper Creek in Denton, Texas and determines the feasibility of Federal participation in the potential improvements. Cooper Creek is located In the northern part of the City of Denton, Texas. The creek flows in a southeasterly direction though the city and terminates at Lewisville Lake. The creek is generally small but well defined, mostly unimproved channel with several tributaries. The main channel has an average depth of 6 feet, a top width of 50 feet and a slope of 25 feet per mile. The creek is normally dry with flow occurring during periods of heavy rainfall. There are several culvert crossings that have limited capacity and cause backwater conditions within the stream channel. The 100-year floodplain generally extends beyond the stream. Existing detention ponds were constructed within Cooper Creek watershed to reduce flood damages along the creek. There is some channel erosion along Cooper Creek due to high velocities in the channel. This study evaluated a number of alternatives based on economics, engineering, environmental, and other factors. No Alternative was identified that produced positive net National Economic Development benefits. Comprehensive benefits were analyzed, however, the lack of benefits across all categories led the team to recommend no Federal action. The non-Federal partner (City of Denton) supports the recommendation. ES-1 (NOTE: This page intentionally left blank) ES-2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 1.1. Authority........................................................................................................................1 1.2. Scope of the Study........................................................................................................1 1.3. Related Studies and Reports ........................................................................................2 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................4 2.1. Existing Infrastructure....................................................................................................4 2.2. Physical Environment....................................................................................................4 2.2.1. Climate ..................................................................................................................4 2.2.2. Hydrology ..............................................................................................................4 2.2.3. Geology.................................................................................................................6 2.2.4. Soils.......................................................................................................................6 2.2.5. Surface Water .......................................................................................................7 2.2.6. Floodplains............................................................................................................7 2.2.7. Water Quality.........................................................................................................8 2.2.8. Wetlands ...............................................................................................................9 2.2.9. Air Quality..............................................................................................................9 2.2.10. Noise ...................................................................................................................10 2.2.11. Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) ............................................10 2.3. Biological Resources...................................................................................................11 2.3.1. Vegetation ...........................................................................................................11 2.3.2. Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................11 2.3.3. Wildlife.................................................................................................................12 2.3.4. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species...................................13 2.4. Recreational Resources..............................................................................................14 2.5. Socio-Economic Conditions ........................................................................................14 2.6. Incorporating the Needs and Considerations of All At-Risk Communities ..................15 2.7. Cultural Resources......................................................................................................16 3. FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................18 3.1. Physical Environmental...............................................................................................18 3.2. Economic Conditions...................................................................................................18 3.2.1. Planned Development.........................................................................................20 3.3. Biological Environment................................................................................................20 3.4. Cultural Resources......................................................................................................20 i 3.5. HTRW..........................................................................................................................21 3.6. Summary of Future Without Project Conditions..........................................................21 4. PLANNING CRITERIA/ PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED aCTION ............22 4.1. Problem Statements....................................................................................................22 4.2. Federal Objective........................................................................................................22 4.3. Study Objectives .........................................................................................................22 4.4. Opportunities...............................................................................................................22 4.5. Constraints..................................................................................................................22 4.5.1. Universal Constraints ..........................................................................................22 4.5.2. Specific Study Constraints ..................................................................................22 4.6. Planning Criteria..........................................................................................................23 4.6.1. Acceptability ........................................................................................................23 4.6.2. Completeness .....................................................................................................23 4.6.3. Effectiveness.......................................................................................................23 4.6.4. Efficiency.............................................................................................................23 4.6.5. Study Specific Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................23 5. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................24 5.1. Plan Formulation Rationale.........................................................................................24 5.2. Management Measures...............................................................................................24 5.2.1. Development of Alternatives ...............................................................................26 5.3. Preliminary Array of Alternatives and First Screening.................................................27 5.4. Alternatives Carried Forward.......................................................................................28 5.4.1. Alternative 1: No Action.......................................................................................28 5.4.2. Alternative 2: Detention Basin Alone...................................................................28 5.4.3. Alternative 3: Detention Basin and channel improvements.................................28 5.4.4. Alternative 4: Detention Basin and nonstructural measure .................................28 5.4.5. Alternative 5: Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications ........................28 5.4.6. Alternative 6: Bridge Culvert Modifications alone................................................28 5.4.7. Alternative 7: Bridge culvert modification and a nonstructural measure..............29 5.4.8. Alternative 8: Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications .............29 5.4.9. Alternative 9: Roadway improvements and a nonstructural measure.................29 5.4.10. Alternative 11: Buyouts alone..............................................................................29 5.4.11. Alternative 13: Raising structures in place alone.................................................29 5.4.12. Additional Alternatives.........................................................................................29 5.5. Second Screening of Alternatives...............................................................................29 ii 5.6. Final Array of Alternatives ...........................................................................................31 6. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FINAL ARRAY .....................................................32 6.1. Detailed Alternative Descriptions ................................................................................32 6.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action.......................................................................................32 6.1.2. Alternative 2: Detention Basin Alone...................................................................32 6.1.3. Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1) + channelization at Windsor Drive.............35 6.1.4. Alternative 5: (5A1) Detention (2C1) and bridge improvements at Sherman Drive 36 6.1.5. Alternative 8: (8A1) Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Drive..39 6.1.6. Alternative 11: Buyouts Alone .............................................................................39 6.1.7. Alternative 13: Raising Structures in Place .........................................................40 6.1.8. Alternative 17: (17A1) Detention (2C1)+bridge improvements(8A1)+channelization(8A1)............................................................................40 6.2. Costs of Final Array of Alternatives.............................................................................41 6.3. Economic Analysis of Final Array of Alternatives........................................................42 6.4. National Criteria...........................................................................................................43 6.5. Comprehensive Benefits Analysis...............................................................................45 7. TENTATIVELY sELECTED pLAN .......................................................................................46 8. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................46 9. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................47 10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................48 11. ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................50 Appendices A. Cost Engineering B. Environmental C. Economics D. Hydraulics and Hydrology E. Civil Engineering F. Geotechnical G. Real Estate H. Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste iii FIGURES Figure 1 - Cooper Creek Study Area ............................................................................................1 Figure 2 - Cooper Creek Project Area (red outline) ......................................................................2 Figure 3 - Cooper Creek Watershed.............................................................................................5 Figure 4 - Cooper Creed Soils Map 2024 .....................................................................................7 Figure 5 - FEMA Flood Insurance Map for Cooper Creek Project Area........................................8 Figure 6 - Cooper Creek Wetland Map.........................................................................................9 Figure 7 - Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool Results for the Cooper Creek Project Area ............................................................................................................................................16 Figure 8 - Flood Inundation at the 0.10 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (10-year FrequencyEvent)........................................................................................................................19 Figure 9 - Flood Inundation at the 0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (500-year FrequencyInterval).....................................................................................................................20 Figure 10 - Location of alternative 2A1 .......................................................................................33 Figure 11 - Location of alternative 2C1 .......................................................................................34 Figure 12 - Location of alternative 21D1 .......................................................................................35 Figure 13 - Location of alternative 3A1 .......................................................................................36 Figure 14 - Location of alternative 5A1 .......................................................................................37 Figure 15 - Layout of proposed bridge improvements for alternative 5A1 ..................................38 Figure 16 - Location of alternative 8A1 .......................................................................................39 Figure 17 - Cooper Creek Impact Area Associated with Alternative 11 and Alternative 13........40 Figure 18 - Location of alternative 17A1 .....................................................................................41 iv TABLES Table 1 - Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Cooper Creek Project Area...................11 Table 2 - Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Cooper Creek Project Area................12 Table 3 - Federal Listed Species Identified on the IPaC for Cooper Creek................................13 Table 4 - Population Data for Denton, Texas..............................................................................15 Table 5 - Single Event Flood Depths and Damages for Structures with Modeled Damages (Monetary Values in $Millions)....................................................................................................18 Table 6 - Cooper Creek Measures Considered ..........................................................................25 Table 7 - Cooper Creek Preliminary Array of Alternatives..........................................................27 Table 8 - Cooper Creek Initial Array of Alternatives with Screening...........................................30 Table 9 - Cooper Creek Alternative Costs (FY25 dollars)...........................................................41 Table 10 - Cooper Creek Economic Analysis (FY25 dollars)......................................................42 Table 11 - Cooper Creek National Criteria Evaluation................................................................44 Table 12 - Cooper Creek Comprehensive Benefits Summary....................................................45 v (NOTE: This page intentionally left blank) vi 1 . INTRODUCTION 1.1. Authority The feasibility study is being conducted under authority granted by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (Public Law 80-858), as amended, as administered under the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). 1.2. Scope of the Study The study examines the feasibility and environmental effects of implementing flood risk management measures along Cooper Creek in Denton, Texas. The City of Denton is located in central Denton County, which is in the northcentral portion of the state. Latitude: 33°13'45" N by Longitude: 97007'25" W. The study area is shown in Figure 1 with the project area shown below in Figure 2. The non-Federal partner for the feasibility study is the City of Denton. Denton, Texas is located in Texas Congressional District 13 which is represented by Congressman Ronny Jackson and Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. M.. 'GYM.i Uy PJq J Ib.w. Pvly a ME .+ap•. v+n.Pni» w.v IWp -WP I{v. dMon n.m. l.11vbn /iP1..Y I p•�,✓ah ACa4rry 'V'" `� vW I.IGY YA f OK 7N NC AR NM // . . .'I' LA N t Figure 1 - Cooper Creek Study Area 1 sue: . �: .� :.�, � � /ir ' :ems.... '°°�"-� .�► Y � M 1( R Figure 2 - Cooper Creek Project Area (red outline) This report documents the studies and coordination conducted to determine whether the Federal Government should participate in flood risk management measures along Cooper Creek at Denton, Texas. The study of potential flood risk management measures considered a wide range of alternatives and the environmental consequences of those alternatives, but focused mainly on actions that would provide efficient and effective management of flood risk to the surrounding community. Although flood risk management is a high priority mission for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), flood risks due to high flows along Cooper Creek do not generate sufficient benefits to allow USACE to recommend a project to Congress. USACE can only recommend to Congress flood risk management measures cost-shared by non-Federal partners. The City of Denton has provided a letter of intent dated 29 June 2023 which includes the non-Federal sponsor (NFS) intention to cost share in Federally constructed flood risk management measures along Cooper Creek. The partnership of Federal and non- Federal interests in flood risk management measures helps ensure that those measures will effectively serve both local and national needs. 1.3. Related Studies and Reports February 1982. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Detailed Project Report Cooper Creek Denton, Texas. Previous study on Cooper Creek terminated due to lack of benefits. December 2003. DEH Consulting. Preliminary Analysis of City of Denton Drainage Capital Improvement Plan. Analysis developing preliminary plan for the City of Denton Drainage Capital Improvement Plan and prioritizing the projects according to the need and benefit of the public. July 2009. Jacobs Engineering. Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Preliminary Engineering Final Report. Discussed flood mitigation options and costs along Cooper Creek. 2 December 2009. Freese Nichols. Cooper Creek and Pecan Creek Tributary PEC-4 Regional Drainage Studies. Study to determine an effective approach to managing the 100-year floodplain within Cooper Creek and Pecan Creek watersheds. August 2012. Olsson Associates. Drainage Report Replacement Bridge 716.40 Choctaw Subdivision Cooper Creek, Denton, Texas. Report to support application for a City of Denton Floodplain Development Permit for the replacement of an aging timber railroad bridge with a modern concrete bridge by the Union Pacific Railroad. Mar 2020. KCE Engineering. Mockingbird Multi-Family Flood Study Denton, Texas. Study to determine the existing 100-year floodplain along a tributary to Cooper Creek adjacent to a proposed multi-family development and determine is floodplain reclamation is required and possible for the development. April 2023. Pacheco Koch. Avondale Park Channel Stabilization Project-Design Alternatives Feasibility Report City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. Analyzed, proposed, and designed channel stabilization and erosion protection improvements along Cooper Creek in Avondale Park. Three alternatives were conceptually designed. 3 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter presents a description of the resources and baseline conditions that could be affected from implementing the proposed alternative in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 775 guidelines. The level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impact. The study area occurs along Cooper Creek which flows through the City of Denton, Texas. Cooper Creek is located in central Denton County, which is in the northcentral portion of the state (Figure 1). Cooper Creek runs through a developed area of Denton, Texas. Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek induces damages to adjacent properties, increases risk to human health and safety, and inundates roadways resulting in road closures, traffic delays and increased emergency response times. At least one known fatality has been attributed to flood waters from Cooper Creek. In addition, high flow events are contributing to erosion downstream of Avondale Park with the channel encroaching on residential lots and fence lines. 2.1. Existing Infrastructure The study area of Cooper Creek spans across the city of Denton, Texas, and includes multiple crossings of interest, primarily within areas of heavy residential development. Beginning downstream, Cooper Creek crosses Mingo Road. Mingo Road currently is overtopped during flooding events, affecting emergency response and evacuation times, but does not create backwater affects nor damage to any structures directly upstream from the crossing. The Nottingham Drive crossing is just downstream of Avondale park; flooding seems to cause minimal structural damages at this point, however, there is evidence of bank erosion downstream of this location. At East Sherman Drive, a bend occurs directly at the crossing with the low-lying area occurring just upstream and to the north of the crossing. Sanitary sewer lines currently run parallel to the creek but may be relocated by the City prior to or concurrently with this project. Overloading and surcharging of the local storm drain system is likely during flooding events, with this location having the most properties experiencing flooding. The upstream limit of the project area does not appear to include any structures that experience flooding and will likely not fall within the scope of the study. 2.2. Physical Environment 2.2.1. Climate The climate of the study area is humid subtropical with warm to hot summers and mild winters. The average annual high temperature is about 76 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average summer high of about 96 degrees for the months of June, July, and August, and an average annual winter low temperature of 54 degrees. Periods of freezing temperatures are infrequent and rainfall averages about 38 inches annually (U.S. Climate, 2024). Severe weather occurs periodically in the form of severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, flood-producing extreme precipitation events, and occasional winter ice storm (Runkle et al, 2022). 2.2.2. Hydrology Cooper Creek is located In the northern part of the City of Denton, Texas. The creek flows in a southeasterly direction though the city and terminates at Lewisville Lake. The watershed of Cooper Creek is about 6.1 miles long and conveys a drainage area of approximately 9.64 4 square miles. The creek is generally small but well defined, mostly unimproved channel with several tributaries. The main channel has an average depth of 6 feet, a top width of 50 feet and a slope of 25 feet per mile. The creek is normally dry with flow occurring during periods of heavy rainfall. The Cooper Creek watershed is shown in Figure 3. MA1 - tons a � 7 • �.g.nd (J FEMA 103-Ir 41;N CF)R X4 1% i ti Q2•' Loops Gos Nb:yac � [/ — dYwNti(VMt�� 'pd'oDnMyfwMrl 1-� `,'•' I,'� u r�A.a w Figure 3- Cooper Creek Watershed Cooper Creek is generally a trapezoidal, unlined earthen channel. There are several culvert crossings that have limited capacity and cause backwater conditions within the stream channel. The 100-year floodplain generally extends beyond the stream banks and into the residential yards. Existing detention ponds were constructed within Cooper Creek watershed to reduce flood damages along the creek. There is some channel erosion along Cooper Creek due to high velocities in the channel. At present, most of the development within Cooper Creek watershed is residential (mostly single-family), with a few schools and parks scattered within the watershed. While the watershed is nearly fully developed, there are a few areas in the upstream reaches of Cooper Creek and its tributaries that are presently undeveloped and future development of these areas may worsen the backwater problems, causing additional flooding along Cooper Creek. Commercial development is widely scattered throughout the lower end of the watershed and has only minimal flood damage potential. Much of the vegetative cover is in its natural state except where residential development has encroached upon the creek in the upper end of the watershed. 5 2.2.3. Geology The project area is in a region known as the Eastern Cross Timbers Ecoregion. The region extends southward from the Red River through eastern Denton County and along the boundary between Dallas and Tarrant counties. It then stretches through Johnson County to the Brazos River and into Hill County (Butler, 2022). The region includes rolling hills, cuestas, and ridges. Soils within the Cross Timbers are mostly sandy, loamy, and are underlain by sand, shale, clay, sandstone, calcareous shale, and limestone. Today, livestock farming is the main land use, but some cropland also occurs (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)-A 2024). The City of Denton sits on top of the Grayson Marl rock formation. Grayson Marl, mostly marl, is light- greenish-gray to medium-gray, weathers to grayish yellow. Thickness of Grayson Marl in Texas is between 15 and 60 feet (United States Geological Service (USGS), 2024). 2.2.4. Soils The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (Public Law 97-98, Title XV, Subtitle I, Section 1539-1549 requires federal actions to minimize unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, specifically prime farmlands. The Act defines prime farmlands as "...land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion..." The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for designating soils as prime farmland soils. The project area consists of a variety of ground cover types with the majority consisting of disturbed soils covered by urban development as the City of Denton has grown around the banks of Cooper Creek. The proposed footprint of the project does not include land or soil suitable for agricultural activities. Based on the Soil Survey of Denton County, Texas (Soil Conservation Service, 1988), soils surrounding the project area are classified in the Sanger and Wilson-Urban land complex soil series, which are classified as a clay-loke and well-drained soils weathered from claystone with low slopes (Figure 4). According to Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) information acquired from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2024), soils within the Sanger and Wilson-Urban series are not considered prime farmlands (Soil Survey Staff, 2024). 6 '.► _ K - VI- out AW M Soil Types Sanger-Urban land complex,1-5%slope J- Wilson-Urban land complex,0-2%slope _ r ` Dallas Cooper Creek Soils Map O Ii..u,CGI:\R,C56S,Fsn Con vun-Naps Cnnrnl>ur,nn,llm\:edfl'exas,(:ity-of lA•nron,'1'eco ,� Pn,ks&\r JdG&.1✓OPnSrr.'Nh1.�,;r—fi,Es,'lmilrnn.aar,nu,.5a1e(;raph, 2024 .I ', (;eo'I'erlrnnMgirs,Inc,K11 A-11NASA,t:S(;S,I4P:\,NI?S,I DS(:rnsra B,u —,t'SnA,I SI 11- Parks&\\'illt:jr•I.sri,'I'nniIn,n,C;armin,.4'afn(;raph,1':1(),\il I/N:\S:\,I S(;S,ISP:\,NPS, Figure 4- Cooper Creed Soils Map 2024 2.2.5. Surface Water Cooper Creek lies in the Elm Fork Trinity Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12030103). Streams in the watershed vary from slow, meandering streams flowing to smaller, riffle and pool types in the smaller watersheds. Cooper Creek is a 6.3-mile-long tributary to the Trinity River which eventually leads into Lewisville Lake. The project area consists of a shallow stream about 10 feet wide. Flow through the site is generally slow moving and perennial. Despite erosion occurring in the area, turbidity is low, and the water clarity is good. The stream bed is composed of some clays and silts towards the center of the channel, while red clays are found along the shoreline and at the East Sherman Drive bridge. 2.2.6. Floodplains The project area is classified as Zone AE Regulatory Floodway on the Federal Emergency Management Flood Insurance Rate Map as part of the Denton County Unincorporated Areas (48121 C0360G) (Figure 5). Immediately in the project area, floodplain characteristics are restricted on either side by residential housing communities (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2023). 7 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA Legend rcL rs RlvOAI rw bceaalD ITAEw AND Nbu bw roA nRM vAVLL uran h. witllwt saw Flood Elevation)aFE) m..A.e- 1 2 �� SPECIAL FLOOD WIOI SR oe D.Pdi Jee AA Ao.An rE AA j • HAZARD AREAS Ra`uMaty Fleedasly - 0.3ti Annual.hence Flood HazaFd.Areas 1 1 I I dflsrannualchance flood w harerage 1 "N 'i t 1 depth of le Than one foot uz eth ditfainage Ful a..ndu ns-Annual m chance Flood Hazard-, IF E"Area win Red—Flood Rrsk due to OTNERAREASOF L.—See N.es.:• ! FLOOD HAZARD%rA4 Area win Fle.Rh due to letaer FLr Area of Mmlmal Flood Hazard a Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area o1 Und—mmed Flood Hazard,--,, m F$ GENERAL ---- channel W,an.or s:brm sewer t<I Zone AE� STRUCTURES IIIIIII Leree.Nke or F bodwall wa—.S.—I win l4 Annualuhance Q 4 J.L`i wattr surtaee Ekratxn Drnton,Ciro of s(Oa CoaatalTyansa. as 480194 �� y Zone AE — —Be fbod El—nd.Lme(sfE) Lmn of Study •9 _mrrsdla n eounaary ,� —.--coastal Transeotsasaline FLOODWA OTHER_ _p,.file Useline Z0/12 Er FEATURES HydnIglaphic Fee— CO rA r.LLj NR Dlgnal Data A--able 1 I MAP PANELS unmapced (' AREAOF MINIMALFLJOOD HAZARD In.In on°n ldxrtC by'h...nE Eoes n«epreaseet •�K Let an aumornatrve prdvenr locatmn. 1GF •— I _ 1Sl= do ,food map,Hnh fEN. 11d-,bertne.dl A J,gltal food maps d i!�s not.aW as described bebw _ IN, - The baseman show n complks wdh FEMA's basemap tandards me Il000 hoard information nderned dreclly ham the 1 authoriutrve NFHL web sernces prarded by FEMA.ThH map po esrtetl an:So 2"2d a•.12F.o,\t and tla..not :♦� hIj_hanges or amendmenis subwquent to this daze alM time The NFHL and effeetne informauan may change a became superseded by new data—11— t_�' 1 W ele ma do ofrsrodAbwmap age.floodlbwmgmap l- elements do of appear.basemap imagery'.flood zoce labels. legend.Beak bar mancreationdale.com unity,Oenlifiers le FIRM panel numb and FIRM efck .date Map images for 1:6,000 .ma ..aped and unmodern ded areas enrol be uwd for egulaicry purposes. Figure 5 - FEMA Flood Insurance Map for Cooper Creek Project Area 2.2.7. Water Quality Regional water quality is influenced by lithology, soil composition and land use activities. In Denton County, rugged upland areas have been cleared for urban use. Community housing, businesses, and recreation are important land uses. Cooper Creek is part of the Upper Elm Fork Trinity Watershed. Water quality in the Trinity River Basin is generally good while average stream gradients and dissolved oxygen levels are typically lower than waters in the lower basin, whereas turbidity, total suspended solids, total organic carbon, total phosphorus and biochemical oxygen demand values are typically higher (TWDB, 2024). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters where existing pollution controls are not stringent enough to achieve state water quality standards and establish a priority ranking of these waters. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for assessing water quality monitoring data and developing 303(d) list every two years in accordance with the CWA. The Texas Draft 2024 303(d) List represents the most recent evaluation of water quality data. Cooper Creek is not listed as an impaired waterbody for any appraised metrics. There are no waterbodies upstream of Cooper Creek that would contribute to the understanding of its water quality (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2024). 8 2.2.8. Wetlands Wetlands are often defined as areas where the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or near the soil surface drives the natural system including the type of soils (i.e. hydric soils) that form, the plants that grow and the fish and/or wildlife that use the habitat. The existing project footprint (Figure 6) covers approximately 27.3 acres with 1.1 acres occurring within Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and 5 acres of that occurring in Riverine wetlands. mco WeY = Z 3 Elementary 660ft N m Yucca Dr — School o n a a i� c d A cKamY Blvd r Imperial D _N ° o - - - _ 3 Imperial Dr a 0 riPP'(rl o - - _ - - 642 If Cromwell Dr Kings Row i - Kings Rosy - Aspen Dr - Laguna Dr _ �obbl Laguna Dr 637it Stratford Lo CooPe Sierra Dr - Pickv .664 It Manhattan Dr rs Park ienta °ver St pool rY Evers Park O ° o c a - WOlftrap 0 O 0 a 3 O b�,- /oofr EWindsor Legend Bluebonne h 3 edand Types Freshwater Pond 0 0` Lake Freshwater Emergent 0 - �°+ E.W`nas 0 Wetland Riverine Driftwood Trl i Freshwater Forested/ -Project Study Area - - Wilson Shrub Wetland Boundary Chisholm Trl- F Elementary o Denton Cooper Creek Wetland Map ,\ NPlano 2024 Dallas i i,��n c ,.i., .v1I o �sn Figure 6 - Cooper Creek Wetland Map 2.2.9. Air Quality The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality nationwide. The Clean Air Act (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7401 et seq.), as amended, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide- spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards classified as either"primary" or"secondary." Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations such as people with pre-existing heart or lung diseases (such as asthma), children, and older adults. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM,o), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (S02) and lead (Pb). If the concentration of one or more criteria pollutant in a geographic area is found to exceed the regulated "threshold" level for one or more of the NAAQS, the area 9 may be classified as a non-attainment area. Areas with concentrations of criteria pollutants that are below the levels established by the NAAQS are considered either attainment or unclassifiable areas. The project area is located within Denton County, Texas and is part of an area designated as non-attainment, meaning concentrations of criteria pollutants are above the levels established by the NAAQS (EPA 2024). Due to the area's NAAQS non-attainment status, if the study were to continue a General Conformity determination would be required. 2.2.10. Noise Federal and local governments have established noise guidelines and regulations for the purpose of protecting citizens from potential hearing damage and from various other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. The Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise developed land-use compatibility guidelines for noise in terms of day-night average sound level (DNL). It is recommended that no residential uses, such as homes, multifamily dwellings, dormitories, hotels, and mobile home parks, be located where the noise is expected to exceed a DNL of 65 decibels (dBA). For outdoor activities, the EPA recommends DNL of 55 dBA as the sound level below which there is no reason to suspect that the general population would be at risk from any of the effects of noise (EPA, 1974). Noise- sensitive receptors are facilities or areas where excessive noise may disrupt normal activity, cause annoyance, or loss of business. Land uses such as residential, religious, educational, recreational, and medical facilities are more sensitive to increased noise levels than commercial and industrial land uses. Review of the project area show that it is in an urban area comprised of residential homes and businesses. There would be temporary noise disturbance from construction associated with the project. 2.2.11. Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) In order to complete a feasibility level HTRW evaluation for the Cooper Creek CAP 205, a records search was conducted following the rules and guidance of ER 1165-2-132: HTRW Guidance for Civil Works Projects, and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-13: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. In the records review, files, maps and other documents that provide environmental information about the project area are obtained and reviewed. To complete the records review, USACE reviewed publicly available databases and sources, using the proposed footprint of the project, along with an approximate 1-mile search distance for each of the sources. The records search revealed several HTRW sites in the vicinity of the project area, although none of these sites have the potential to affect the proposed project. See the future without project, alternative analyses, and the HTRW appendix for more information about risks from these sites. Cooper Creek has several potential HTRW sites in relative proximity (one mile) to the proposed project footprint, including 6 registered petroleum storage tanks, an oil and gas pipeline, as well as 1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action site and 4 Toxic Release Inventory sites located adjacent within a mile of the target area. With populations increasing worldwide, more development and thus an increase in HTRW instances, is expected in future decades that could potentially have negative impacts on Cooper Creek. However, the current identified sites within one mile of the proposed project have an extremely low potential to impact the project as they are not located directly in the creek. 10 Although not classified as HTRW, pipelines and oil wells play an important role in the existing HTRW conditions in and around Cooper Creek. The oil and natural gas pipelines that cross Cooper Creek will need to be avoided. Refer to the HTRW Appendix for locations of known pipelines in and around the project area. The project alternatives involving disruption of the sediment may need to consider the locations of these oil and gas pipelines. The identified potential HTRW sites are not in the creek itself which eliminates potential impacts. 2.3. Biological Resources 2.3.1. Vegetation The study area is located within the Cross Timbers and Prairies ecoregion, which covers the upper center portion of the state of Texas. Grassland species such as little bluestem, Indiangrass and big bluestem are common. Texas mulberry, American elm and Osage orange are more common here than they were to the east. In the west, live oak becomes more important, replacing the post oak of the east. Decreasing moisture discourages clusters of trees, and trees form isolated stands. Flameleaf sumac, redbud, Mexican plum and Eastern red cedar become more prevalent. Wildlife is a mixture of eastern forest and prairie species. 2.3.2. Aquatic Resources Cooper Creek has habitat conditions that can support many species of fish and invertebrates (Table 1). Fish communities characteristically in the area include a sunfish and minnow- dominated community along with darters and occasional catfishes and an assemblage of macroinvertebrates. No protected or sensitive species are known to occur in the creek. Table 1 -Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in the Cooper Creek Project Area Common Name IF- Scientific NarTre Microcaddisfly Paucicalcaria ozarkensis Nearctic Paduniellan Caddisfly Paduniella nearctica Mayfly Paraleptophlebia calcarica Elevated Spring Amphipod Stygobromus elatus Boston Mountains Crayfish Cambarus causeyi Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae White perch Pomoxis annularis Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum Purple Lilliput Toxolasma lividum Isopod Lirceus bicuspidatus Queen Snake Regina septemvittata 11 Common Name Scientific Name— Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula American Eel Anguilla rostrata 2.3.3. Wildlife Considerable urban growth and expansion throughout the area surrounding Cooper Creek has caused local wildlife to become fragmented. Cooper Creek serves as a green corridor that provides ample habitat for several common species of birds and mammals. Table 2 provides a partial list of common bird and mammal species known to occur in areas near the project area that may use the project area for foraging, nesting, resting, or migration. Table 2 - Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Cooper Creek Project Area Ir Common Name IL r Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Birds Black vulture Coragyps atratus Ring-neck duck Aythya collaris Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Wood duck Aix sponsa Cardinal Cardinalis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Common Geothlypis trichas Mourning dove Zenaida macroura yellowthroat Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Robin Turdus migratorius Eastern wood- Contopus virens Turkey vulture Cathartes aura pewee Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Mammals Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Opossum Didelphis virginiana Eastern gray Sciurus Raccoon Procyon lotor squirrel carolinensis White-tailed deer Odocoileus Nine-banded Dasypus virginianus armadillo novemcinctus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus floridanus Woodchuck Marmota monax Beaver Castor canadensis 12 6 Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Striped skunk Mephitis Bobcat Felis rufus 2.3.4. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was utilized to determine species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may occur in or near the Cooper Creek study area (USFWS, 2024). A total of five Federally threatened or endangered species were identified; however, the project area only contains suitable habitat for one species (Table 3). No Federally designated critical habitat for any of the listed species is present in the action area. The bald eagle has been delisted but the protections provided by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act remain in effect. Table 3 - Federal Listed Species Identified on the IPaC for Cooper Creek HabitatSuitable Habitat in the Species Name Status Mammals Summer habitat: wide variety of forested/wooded habitats for roosting. Roost among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous Summer Habitat: Yes Tricolored Bat hardwood trees, but may also be PE Perimyotis subflavus found in Spanish moss, pine trees, and occasionally Winter Habitat: No manmade structures. Winter habitat (hibernacula): caves or abandoned mines. Birds Dense marshes and wetlands with nest sites found primarily located in shallow diatom ponds No -Urban area with Whooping crane E that contain bulrush. During sparse forested riparian Grus americana migration, whooping cranes use area lacking a variety of habitats; however, wetlands/marshes wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable. No- Open areas around Piping plover T Coastal shorelines and open the creek are grassy and Charadrius melodus mudflats and sandy areas. disturbed. Lack sandy areas. 13 HabitatSpecies Name Status Description Action Area Wintering and migration habitats are muddy or sandy coastal No - shorelines are Rufa red knot areas, specifically, bays and urbanized and surrounded T estuaries, tidal flats, and Calidris canutus rufa unimproved tidal inlets with sand by patches of Riparian spits, islets, shoals, and Forest sandbars E= Endangered T= Threatened PE= Proposed Endangered PT= Proposed Threatened C= Candidate Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC website and Arkansas Ecological Service Office database 2.4. Recreational Resources Occasional fishing, hiking or wildlife watching may occur immediately along the creek; however, the creek is bordered on all sides by private land making other recreational activities unavailable due to restricted land access. 2.5. Socio-Economic Conditions Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly population, demographics, and economic development. Demographics entail population characteristics and include data pertaining to race, gender, income, housing, poverty status, and educational attainment. Economic development or activity typically includes employment, wages, business patterns, an area's industrial base, and its economic growth. The socio-economic characteristics of Denton, Texas, the nearest town located near the project study area are presented in Table 4. The City of Denton had a population of 158,349 living in 52,000 households in 2022. The racial makeup of the city was 67.8 percent White, 11.5 percent African American, 0.8 percent Native American, 3.5 percent Asian, 0.0 percent other, and 11.1 percent from two or more races. Of the total population, 24.1 percent were of Hispanic or Latino origin. Roughly 15.7 percent of families in the city live below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). 14 Table 4- Population Data for Denton, Texas Population Denton, Texas Population 158,349 Total Households 52,000 White 67.8% Black or African American 11.5% Native American or Alaska Native 0.8% Asian 3.5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% Other Race 0.0% Two or More Races 11.1% Hispanic 24.1% Under 5 years 4.9% 5 to 19 years 18.5% 20 to 64 years 64.4% Over 64 years 12.2% High School Diploma 91.5% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 40.0% Median Household Income $71,717 2.6. Incorporating the Needs and Considerations of All At-Risk Communities An analysis using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) was conducted to identify at risk communities in or near the project area (Figure 7). The tool identifies at risk communities if they are in a census tract that meets the thresholds for at least one of the tool's categories of burden, or if they are on land within the boundaries of Federally Recognized Tribes. The CEJST showed that a portion of the area surrounding the project area was characterized as being at risk. 15 Tract information denton.LK • -~ I �z� Number:48121020503 County:Denton County State:Texas Population:6,727 t + 4k Tract denunMhks Race 1'Ethnicity (Show�) Age (2hW-) rdeatinad as disadvantatedt 48 - - AK This tract is considered HI - disadvantaged because it meets 1 PR burden threshold AND the associated socioeconomic GLI threshold. AS SOW I99dback O MP VI Climate change + Energy + Health + Housing + Legacy pollution + Figure 7 - Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool Results for the Cooper Creek Project Area 2.7. Cultural Resources The study area is located on the southern plains in north Texas in the City of Denton along Cooper Creek. The study area is heavily developed for residential and commercial use and the banks and channel of Copper Creek have been modified to control erosion. There are numerous cultural resources recorded within the region that include the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed properties, archeological sites, cemeteries, and historical markers. A preliminary assessment of the cultural resources within one kilometer of the proposed study area was conducted using a desktop review of the databases maintained by the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory for cultural resources as well as a review of historic aerial imagery. The assessment identified one previously recorded cultural resource, the Fairhaven Retirement Home, a NRHP listed property, approximately 950 meters from the proposed study area. There are no other previously recorded cultural resources. Only two previous archeological surveys are within one kilometer of the study area. Both surveys were conducted in 1993 for the Federal Highway Administration along United States (U.S.) Highway 77 and North Locust Street. While there have been numerous cultural resource investigations conducted in the surrounding region, there are no other previous investigations in the proposed study area or within one kilometer. The primary considerations concerning cultural resources are threats to buried archeological deposits because of earthmoving activities. However, most of the study area has been 16 developed for residential and commercial use. The soils within the study area are mapped as Sanger-Urban land complex and Wilson-Urban land complex, both clayey soils originating from alluvium from weathered slopes and bedrock. Although the area has not been previously investigated, the residential and commercial development and the presence of urban soils in the study area suggest that the probability for intact archeological sites to occur in the area is low. 17 3. FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 3.1. Physical Environmental The watershed is nearly fully developed, however, there are a few areas in the upstream reaches of Cooper Creek and its tributaries that are presently undeveloped. Commercial development is widely scattered throughout the lower end of the watershed and has only minimal flood damage potential. Future development of these areas may worsen the backwater problems, causing additional flooding along Cooper Creek. Temperature, drought, and rainfall intensity in the study area are projected to increase in the future, while streamflow trends are projected to decrease (USACE 2015). 3.2. Economic Conditions To illustrate the extent of flooding, Table 5 displays single event damages (unweighted by probability) for the suite of flood events included in an FDA analysis. At higher frequency events, depths relative to first floor structure elevations and estimated damages are limited, while at lower frequencies, they are higher and at the extreme (0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)) structure and content damages total $7.8 million. Total Expected Annual Damage (EAD) across the range of modeled flood events is roughly $907,000. Table 5- Single Event Flood Depths and Damages for Structures with Modeled Damages (Monetary Values in $Millions) ProbabilityAEP AEP AEP AEP . AEP AEP Depth Relative to First Floor Elevations Mean 1 0.80 0.40 0.20 1 0.06 0.24 1 0.41 0.52 0.64 Standard Deviation 0.00 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.79 0.86 Maximum 0.16 1.06 1.48 1.98 2.54 3.07 3.57 4.23 Minimum 1.82 1.93 1.92 1.82 1.89 1.51 1.46 1.95 Single Event Damages $millions Structures $0.20 $0.85 $1.50 $2.31 $2.86 $3.46 $4.01 $4.90 Content and vehicles $0.15 $0.56 $0.95 $1.43 $1.73 $2.06 $2.36 $2.88 Total $0.34 $1.42 $2.45 $3.75 $4.59 $5.53 $6.37 $7.78 18 a: : ,d S\ 6 i • r R I L KJr\y11\Lr p 'J •r St �NJ�/ � D t 1•r Yartry p' e 4 . �' cyrr\wJ• ! �9' ja a ai r A • 1•J, ♦ i ��Qwff e2 •+g 4 r ? t 1 ryofrsNd r Tr M • ar br v+w•rr ; i Nylr 4a\tiv.or Q �a l•a'�•�` furrar/S • SJIJdoit a CI•at,� =� K.""R•m Kur•\b•Trp � a T h:•rry C �.�� r fi 3 �sv Grrwr OJ�►1 ft t3 U C/arnJ b. • J � st bw•Itv� O� n� • � 4 �` Oqq 4_ • O 3 Imo-'{{ � 1 \��;T`'�— �i •~� Z 1 - �_ �.+J •oua Th .. q1H� 5r1 - Clruuolm 1r1 3 q~(� on ft 4 keg R N e CMr\\\IL. �22 4, of 7r1 7 fs' J+JOM St �t M i s cOV� E ro N Ca •alea' � g S • � ••ta.91CM CVINY W [ j ; a i \1W\rw\••r•Rur CIr•M lK 5 it Ln ^ r UJrr DI • • r MMVW004 L• Yir ryxd • •r i lm•°o/Dr arNtr Stj lr•rrl•a000\ Figure 8 - Flood Inundation at the 0.10 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (10-year Frequency Event) 19 Y d it g s a C HW:a,a%kn p / v Su.Vaa•/D' Y a � : CI,v1 Wa► a r•� s b .a.at a • •ty' Q� Y oMl e i ' r� o ° m Haft"I W10r ni 1 Ll 4 r+wnr ftvN NSA',`f6:'0:<FM.UpbaC,CooperC Ck,mF»ctA'ry 1*0r'aam0' ap"Rove r D Sal at 11 •` py1� 1-W Rum _ • . Sbq/u0S m f.•t K• � G�Qakt st� ♦,vran.D � J St Ck+N,OIT 1ri d W w Caaa� Q gOrwln E l Ard,w Tel i ,wasa►St j z a J °t'ak° 5 catwso0, a otootfC& = enaeta..Cl + S o C Chem f - +' ; 1 Ww.ar.aWyRw a • 00.11096d la MM11w auO • A Lr eoOD, LmoOP00001 -- peewh v- i i Figure 9 - Flood Inundation at the 0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability Event(500-year Frequency Interval) 3.2.1. Planned Development The project area is mostly fully developed along Cooper Creek. There are minimal development opportunities within the project area that are not currently designated as Regulatory Floodway by FEMA. Along Stuart Road, there are openings for possible minor residential development; it can be reasonably assumed that this would not significantly affect flooding currently highlighted along Cooper Creek. The same can be assumed for the expansion of impermeable surfaces that would come with the expansion of Avondale park and commercial development just downstream of Mingo Road. 3.3. Biological Environment Under the No Action Alternative, Biological Resources are expected to remain the same as described in the Existing Conditions Section of this report. 3.4. Cultural Resources There are no previously recorded cultural resources located within the proposed project area and the formation processes that currently affect these sites will continue into a future without the project. Undiscovered cultural resources could be at risk of displacement or degradation from flood events and future development in the region. These formation processes may result in partial or total loss of historic properties. 20 3.5. HTRW No Recognized Environmental Conditions were identified within one mile of the project area that could be reasonably expected to affect the Cooper Creek CAP 205 project. Although not classified as HTRW under USACE regulations, several oil and gas infrastructure sites were identified within the surrounding area. As a result of these findings, pipelines and wells within the project vicinity and along potential site access routes should be precisely located during PED to ensure no unintended interaction occurs with the existing oil and gas facilities. Despite the lack of identified sites that could be reasonably expected to affect the project, there is always a possibility that previously unidentified HTRW could be uncovered, even when a proposed project is entirely within a preexisting project footprint. An updated HTRW survey will be required should the project be reconsidered and funded at a future time. Additionally, care should be taken to identify and address HTRW concerns that may arise in a timely manner, so as not to affect proposed project timelines. 3.6. Summary of Future Without Project Conditions If No Action is taken to address flooding along Cooper Creek, the most likely future condition of the area is as follows: • Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek will continue to cause damages to adjacent properties. • Increased risk to human health and safety as a result of inundated roadways, road closures, traffic delays, and increased emergency vehicle response times. • If no action is taken at Cooper Creek, the streambank will continue to erode downstream of Avondale Park and cause encroachments on residential lots and fence lines. 21 4. PLANNING CRITERIA / PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1. Problem Statements • Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek induces damages to adjacent properties • Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek presents risks to human health and safety 4.2. Federal Objective The Federal objective of water and related land resources project planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's environment pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable EOs, and other Federal planning requirements. 4.3. Study Objectives • Reduce risk of flood induced damages in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis. • Reduce risk to human health and safety in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis. 4.4. Opportunities • An opportunity exists to reduce bank erosion induced by high flows in Cooper Creek, especially Avondale Park and downstream of Avondale Park. • An opportunity exists to combine new recreation features with a flood risk management plan • An opportunity exists to provide the public educational information about their flood risk • An opportunity exists to evaluate existing habitat and possibly use engineering with nature (bioengineering) • An opportunity exists to improve water quality (sediment and bacteria) • An opportunity exists to improve emergency response time in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis 4.5. Constraints 4.5.1. Universal Constraints • Avoid or mitigate for historic and cultural resources (impacts now are mainly from erosion) • Avoid or mitigate for environmental resources and impacts 4.5.2. Specific Study Constraints • Lands on either side of Cooper Creek and its tributaries is almost completely developed. • Utilities run parallel to Cooper Creek 22 • NFS existing and future projects to Cooper Creek may affect plan formulation and economic analysis during feasibility • City requires that improvements have no negative impacts on other properties 4.6. Planning Criteria Federal Principles and Guidelines establish four criteria for evaluation of water resources projects. Those criteria and their definitions are listed below. 4.6.1. Acceptability Acceptability is defined as "the viability and appropriateness of an alternative from the perspective of the Nation's general public and consistency with existing Federal laws, authorities, and public policies. It does not include local or regional preferences for particular solutions or political expediency." 4.6.2. Completeness Completeness is defined as "the extent to which an alternative provides and accounts for all features, investments, and/or other actions necessary to realize the planned effects, including any necessary actions by others. It does not necessarily mean that alternative actions need to be large in scope or scale." 4.6.3. Effectiveness Effectiveness is defined as "the extent to which an alternative alleviates the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities." 4.6.4. Efficiency Efficiency is defined as "the extent to which an alternative alleviates the specified problems and realizes the specified opportunities at the least cost." 4.6.5. Study Specific Evaluation Criteria A project that effectively serves both Federal and non-Federal interests must be sited, planned, and operated so that it safely and efficiently meets user needs. To this end, the project delivery team PDT economic analysis incorporated the criterion of flood damages prevented to analyze alternatives in conjunction with the National Criteria. 23 5. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Plan Formulation Rationale Plan formulation is the process of building alternative plans that meet planning objectives and avoid planning constraints. Alternatives are a set of one or more management measures functioning together to address one or more planning objectives. A management measure is a feature or activity that can be implemented at a specific geographic location to address one or more planning objectives. A feature is a "structural" element that requires construction or assembly on-site whereas an activity is defined as a "nonstructural" action. Each alternative plan shall be formulated in consideration of criteria stated in Section 4.6. 5.2. Management Measures A list of management measures is listed below. The PDT conducted a screening process based on listed criteria with results shown in Table 6. • Detention basin — Excavated area adjacent to or within Cooper Creek to reduce flood risk and lower the peak discharge by detaining the stormwater runoff for a specific short period of time • Channel improvements— Straightening the channel or increasing channel capacity by excavating the channel to be deeper and/or wider • Buyouts- Provide owners an opportunity to sell structures in flood-prone areas for fair market value • Wet floodproofing- Implementation of modifications that allow protection from hydrostatic pressure damage during flooding (thus reducing probability of structural failure), but allows flood waters into (and out of) the structure • Raising structures in place-A nonstructural measure that would elevate existing structures to reduce risk of flood damages • Crossing improvements (including bridge culvert modifications)— Raise the roadway profile and/or increase the hydraulic capacity of the roadway crossing and lower the water surface elevation by adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road • Modify outlet control structures at existing detention basin- An outlet at the detention basin that controls the volume of water/time unit flowing downstream • Energy Dissipators- Within detention basin or channel-Devices that protect downstream areas by reducing the velocity, energy, and turbulence of the flow within the channel • Weirs in existing detention basins-A hydraulic structure is used for regulating the flow of water to prevent flooding, stabilize water levels, and improve the quality of aquatic life in the water • Realign channel a- Straighten channel to allow more water to flow at a faster velocity • Realign channel b- Create meanders to decrease the velocity of the water in the channel • Dry floodproofing- Structural or non-structural modifications or additions which prevent flood waters from entering or encroaching on structures 24 • Warning system- Real-time monitoring and automatic alerts based on water level and flow/volume at Cooper Creek • Rezoning and repurpose areas in vicinity of Cooper Creek- Rezone or repurpose through local ordinances to prevent development of flood-prone areas in the vicinity of Cooper Creek • Levee or floodwall- Natural or artificial wall used to prevent overflow of channel and reduce flood risk from flooding events • Tunnel- An underground floodway that is used to divert excess floodwater from the surface • Bypass channel-A secondary channel to carry flow around problem areas in the main channel • Diversion channel-A secondary channel to reduce flow in and carry flow away from the main channel • Cistern- A large rainwater storage tank used to help reduce storm water runoff and can be used for additional purposes. • Stormwater system improvements-Actions to improve the flow of water through the city's stormwater system • Imperviousness reduction- Actions to improve surface to retain more water during high flow events Table 6- Cooper Creek Measures Considered Measure Evaluation Structural Detention Basin* Carried Forward Channel Improvements* Carried Forward Crossing Improvements (including bridge/culvert modifications)* Carried Forward Modify Outlet Structure at Existing Detention Ineffective existing outlet structures already Basins close to ground level, levees or floodwalls would be needed Energy Dissipaters* It will likely not reduce water surface elevations Weirs in Existing Detention Basins Expensive to implement and likely would not significantly reduce flood risk Realign Channel A- Straighten Channel Likely to be ineffective as the channel is already fairly straight 25 Measure Evaluation Realign Channel B - Create Meander*s Constrained by development on both sides of the channel Constraint by development on both sides of Levee or Floodwall the channel and there would not be enough room to construct Flood damages would not support positive Tunnel net benefits due to the high cost of implementing a tunnel Bypass Channel Limited space and cost prohibitive Diversion Channel Limited space and cost prohibitive Cistern Higher cost than detention area with similar benefits Stormwater System Improvements Not within USACE authority Impervious Reduction Not within USACE authority Non-Structural Buyouts Carried Forward Wet Floodproofing Carried Forward Raising Structures in Place Carried Forward Dry Floodproofing Not recommended by the National Non- structural Committee Would not address the objectives and due to Warning System proximity of structures to Creek and flashy nature of flooding, would not allow ample time to evacuate Rezoning and Repurposing Areas in the Not be practical as land to either side of Vicinity of Cooper Creek Cooper Creek is already developed or utilized for recreation or other purposes *Includes natural and nature-based (NNB) features 5.2.1. Development of Alternatives The PDT held a rapid iteration on 9 May 2024 and incorporated the results of this iteration into a planning charrette with the non-Federal sponsor (NFS) on 11 June 2024. During these meetings, the team developed the problems, opportunities, objectives and constraints and held 26 brainstorming sessions to identify measures which were then screened and combined into preliminary array of fifteen alternatives. Subsequent planning iterations identified three additional alternatives to create the initial array of alternatives. During the subsequent iterations the initial array (to include the additional alternatives) were screened to a final array of eight alternatives. 5.3. Preliminary Array of Alternatives and First Screening During the planning charrette the preliminary alternatives (Table 7) were identified and evaluated by the PDT. Table 7 - Cooper Creek Preliminary Array of Alternatives Alternative Evaluation Alternative 1 — No Action Carried Forward Alternative 2 — Detention Basin alone Carried Forward Alternative 3 — Detention Basin and channel Carried Forward improvements Alternative 4— Detention Basin and nonstructural measure Carried Forward Alternative 5— Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Carried Forward Alternative 6 — Bridge Culvert Modifications Carried Forward alone Alternative 7— Bridge culvert modification Carried Forward and a nonstructural measure Alternative 8— Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications Carried Forward Alternative 9— Roadway improvements and a Carried Forward nonstructural measure Incomplete solution, would require either Alternative 10 — Channel Improvements modifications to the bridge culvert or alone elevating the roadway or the appropriate location of a detention basin Alternative 11 — Buyouts alone Carried Forward Alternative 12 —Wet floodproofing alone Structures in the area are slab on grade with no basements, 27 Alternative Evaluation Alternative 13 — Raising structures in place Carried Forward alone Alternative 14 — Roadway improvements Incomplete Solution and outside USACE alone authority Incomplete solution, would require either Alternative 15— Channel Improvements and modifications to the bridge culvert or nonstructural measure elevating the roadway or the appropriate location of a detention basin * Alternatives 2,3,4, 5, and 8 include NNB features in the form of native plantings. 5.4. Alternatives Carried Forward The initial evaluation and screening resulted in the following initial array of alternatives. 5.4.1. Alternative 1: No Action The No Action plan is the plan without Federal action at the project site. 5.4.2. Alternative 2: Detention Basin Alone Alternative 2 would consist of designing and constructing a detention basin in the vicinity of Cooper Creek. 5.4.3. Alternative 3: Detention Basin and channel improvements This alternative would include a detention basin in the vicinity of Cooper Creek and channel improvements such as straightening the channel immediately adjacent to Sherman Drive and deepening or widening the channel. 5.4.4. Alternative 4: Detention Basin and nonstructural measure Alternative 4 combines a detention basin with at least one non-structural measure. Non- structural measures considered for this project include wet floodproofing, raising structures in place and buyouts. 5.4.5. Alternative 5: Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications This alternative would consist of a detention basin as well as adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. 5.4.6. Alternative 6: Bridge Culvert Modifications alone Alternative 6 includes adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. 28 5.4.7. Alternative 7: Bridge culvert modification and a nonstructural measure This alternative is comprised of adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity as well as at least one non- structural measure. Non-structural measures considered for this project include wet floodproofing, raising structures in place and buyouts. 5.4.8. Alternative 8: Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications Alternative 8 consists of channel improvements such as straightening the channel immediately adjacent to Sherman Drive and deepening or widening the channel combined with adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. 5.4.9. Alternative 9: Roadway improvements and a nonstructural measure This alternative includes raising the roadway profile of Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road at Cooper Creek as well as at least one non-structural measure. Non-structural measures considered for this project include wet floodproofing, raising structures in place and buyouts. 5.4.10. Alternative 11: Buyouts alone. Alternative 11 would consist of determining the structures in the impact area prone to damages with various AEP events and a complete purchase of properties at market value and demolish costs of removing structures within the impact area. 5.4.11. Alternative 13: Raising structures in place alone. This alternative would determine structures in the impact area which are prone to flood damages with various AEP events and raise homes off foundation and place support columns underneath to protect from flooding. 5.4.12. Additional Alternatives During the third iteration of plan formulation, three (3) additional alternatives were identified and included in the initial array of alternatives prior to screening to obtain the final array. • Alternative 16: Bridge culvert modifications, channel improvements and a nonstructural measure • Alternative 17: Detention Basin, Bridge culvert modifications, channel improvements • Alternative 18: Detention Basin, Bridge culvert modifications, channel improvements and a nonstructural measure 5.5. Second Screening of Alternatives Table 8 displays the second screening of alternatives, including the additional alternatives. 29 Table 8 - Cooper Creek Initial Array of Alternatives with Screening Alternative Evaluation Alternative 1 — No Action Carried Forward Alternative 2 — Detention Basin alone Carried Forward for further evaluation Alternative 3 — Detention Basin and channel Carried Forward improvements Alternative 4 — Detention Basin and This combination would not produce nonstructural measure significant additional benefits over the non- structural alone. Alternative 5— Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Carried Forward Alternative 6 — Bridge Culvert Modifications If you increase capacity at crossing, it is still alone limited to capacity in channel Alternative 7— Bridge culvert modification Would effectively become non-structural and a nonstructural measure alternative as bridge culver in effective. Alternative 8 — Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications Carried Forward Alternative 9 — Roadway improvements and a Likely would not fully within USACE authority. nonstructural measure Would effectively become non-structural alternative as bridge culver in effective Alternative 11 — Buyouts alone Carried Forward Alternative 13 — Raising structures in place Carried Forward alone Alternative 16 — Bridge culvert modifications, This combination would not produce channel improvements and a nonstructural significant additional benefits over the non- measure structural alone. . Alternative 17 — Detention Basin, Bridge Carried Forward culvert modifications, channel improvements Alternative 18 — Detention Basin, Bridge This combination would not produce culvert modifications, channel improvements significant additional benefits over the non- and a nonstructural measure structural alone. . * Alternatives 2,3,4, 5, 8, 16, 17 and 18 include NNB features in the form of native plantings. 30 5.6. Final Array of Alternatives After screening the initial array, the final array identified by the PDT consists of seven (7) alternatives: • Alternative 1 — No Action • Alternative 2 — Detention Basin alone • Alternative 3 — Detention Basin and channel improvements • Alternative 5— Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications • Alternative 8 — Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications • Alternative 11 — Buyouts Alone • Alternative 13— Raising Structures in Place Alone • Alternative 17— Detention Basin, Bridge culvert modifications, channel improvements 31 6. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FINAL ARRAY 6.1. Detailed Alternative Descriptions 6.1.1. Alternative 1: No Action If No Action is taken to address flooding along Cooper Creek, the most likely future condition of the area is as follows: • Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek will continue to cause damages to adjacent properties. • Increased risk to human health and safety as a result of inundated roadways, road closures, traffic delays, and increased emergency vehicle response times. • If no Federal action is taken at Cooper Creek, the streambank will continue to erode downstream of Avondale Park and cause encroachments on residential lots and fence lines. 6.1.2. Alternative 2: Detention Basin Alone 2A (2A1) Detention above Sherman Drive: This alternative seeks to utilize land already owned by the City of Denton and minimize impacts on the environment. An area approximately 500 feet wide and 100 feet long would be excavated (4,800 cubic yards) from the park area upstream of Sherman Drive. Figure 10 shows the location of alternative 2A1. 32 14 Figure 10 - Location of alternative 2A1 This alternative adds some floodwater storage capacity in the right overbank. 2A1 includes up to 6 feet of excavation in the right overbank. To minimize impacts on the environment, this alternative would use native grass plantings. 2B (2C1) Detention above Stuart Road, elevation 637 feet): This alternative seeks to utilize a large area of undeveloped land upstream of Stuart Road. This area is not owned by the City of Denton and would result in more environmental impacts due to existing trees, however this area has a significant amount of volume that could be used for floodwater storage. Figure 11 shows the location of alternative 2C1. 33 Y 1 k- 5 VL IL Ira 200ft Figure 11 - Location of alternative 2C1 About 9 acres of land would be excavated to elevation 637 feet and result in an average excavation depth of 7 feet (Total excavation volume is 106,000 cubic yards). The alternative would include an earthen weir approximately 850 feet in length cut to an elevation of 640.5 feet which would optimize the flood storage of the peak of flood hydrograph. The elevation could be increased or decreased to focus flood shaving for different events, but the 25-year event was the event that was selected as a compromise between frequent flood events like the 10-year event and more infrequent flood events like the 100-year. The alternative also includes a pipe at the downstream end to drain the detention area. This detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. 2C (2D1) Detention above Stuart Rd, elevation 634 feet: This alternative is similar to 2C1 but has additional excavation depth, lower earthen weir elevation, and longer drainage pipe. This alternative seeks to utilize a large area of undeveloped land upstream of Stuart Rd. This area is not owned by the City of Denton and would result in more environmental impacts due to existing trees, however this area has a significant amount of volume that could be used for floodwater storage. Figure 12 shows the location of alternative 2D1. 34 � - 40 Ahi �� • 1-�• }� i , . - .fir t Hr t• • , bA VL � _ F ' r w ��..•ram� � `;� � _ Figure 12 - Location of alternative 2131 About 9 acres of land would be excavated to elevation 634 feet and results in an average excavation depth of 10 feet (Total excavation volume is 151,000 cubic yards). The alternative would include an earthen weir approximately 850 feet in length cut to an elevation of 639.8 feet which would optimize the flood storage of the peak of flood hydrograph. The elevation could be increased or decreased to focus flood shaving for different events, but the 25-year event was the event that was selected as a compromise between frequent flood events like the 10-year event and more infrequent flood events like the 100-year. The alternative also includes a pipe at the downstream end to drain the detention area. This detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. 6.1.3. Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1) + channelization at Windsor Drive This alternative includes the detention from alternative 2C1 and channelization around Windsor Rd. The channelization extent for this alternative was identified as the "NED Plan" in a previous USACE report titled "Cooper Creek, Denton Texas, Stage 2 Planning Draft Detailed Project Report" which was from a 1981 USACE CAP Section 205 study on Cooper Creek. Figure 13 shows the location of alternative 3A1. 35 428 ` JVPly y r e I N �� _� a `� e• � Ll r, ►i �� y♦ '�'� ` •Al }`• '. e'er `fir �, •'•, 1 . , , Figure 13 - Location of alternative 3A1 In addition to the detention configuration described under alternative 2C1, channelization would be performed around Windsor Drive. The channelization includes approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 110,400 cubic yards. This detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. 6.1.4. Alternative 5: (5A1) Detention (2C1) and bridge improvements at Sherman Drive This goal with this alternative is to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by adding flood storage with detention (Configuration from alternative 2C1) and increasing the capacity through the Sherman drive bridge. The capacity increase is based on a configuration analyzed and costed during a 2009 study performed for the City of Denton by an engineering firm. Figure 14 shows the location of alternative 5A1. 36 J GI CI.ICV. LJl l.O;011 V11_I tlgl ♦. M� ram,^•', Y It � NN IIff�TT1 I Pi 0 SO 41 NAM per lop LL i t1 -��• •"• + ,�^f•r'Z 1� . .�,;� � "� � `�'�'.�-,mil' - __ 'i•�j .—� �crttr•.��... J��i7� .v.•,i+��+C5CC ft I I Figure 14- Location of alternative 5A1 In addition to the detention configuration described under alternative 2C1, the Sherman Dr. crossing capacity would be increased from a single 30-foot clear span to 2 —40 ft by 8 ft clear spans with a single 2 ft wide pier and vertical abutments. This provides a significant increase in flow area through the bridge (From 210 square feet to 640 square feet). Figure 15 provides an illustration of how the existing crossing compares to the proposed crossing from 5A1. 37 t 101 Monterrey Drive to N' m I I I Reloca.e 12'water , Relocate 15'SS. Relocate 15'S S 15 SS Remove 48'Storm 6Ta �.•rsr 4C'bridge Spans Instae Box Gatlwn 624 6� � `Vj 6Jo eta r Regrade 1404 Sherman Drive 2ti � t Legend Ezlsung Uttlaios Proposed UtaUtles %a Gm —war ONE ft.I e:angry!;.— $tow Proposed Feawres -Sansry Saw. _ ONE Ow t —wr. "wAw W w I Fmsling Featues �/avre Oot ONE Pe Q Tuewatl sw""5~mw o*—ow Gebw ►� Wer'Jan. Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Study -1 WITH DETENTION Sherman Drive JACOBS Figure 15- Layout of proposed bridge improvements for alternative 5A1 38 6.1.5. Alternative 8: (8A1) Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Drive The goal of this alternative is to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by increasing the Cooper Creek channel capacity and crossing capacity at Windsor Dr. The channelization extent for this alternative was identified as the "National Economic Development (NED) Plan" in a previous USACE report titled "Cooper Creek, Denton Texas, Stage 2 Planning Draft Detailed Project Report" which was from a 1981 USACE CAP Section 205 study on Cooper Creek. Figure 16 shows the location of alternative 8A1. Owl .40 i Y r ♦♦ � 1 1 :, u• C 500ft I I Figure 16 - Location of alternative 8A1 Channelization would be performed around Windsor Dr. The channelization includes approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The crossing capacity would be increased from 4- 8 ft x 8 ft culverts to 4 — 8 ft x 8 ft culverts and 2 — 8 ft wide by 6 ft high culverts. It is assumed that that the 4 existing culverts would need to be demolished and replaced with 6 new culverts. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 4,400 cubic yards. To minimize impacts on the environment, this alternative would use native grass plantings. 6.1.6. Alternative 11: Buyouts Alone Alternative 11 would consist of determining the structures in the impact area prone to damages with various AEP events and a complete purchase of properties at market value and demolition costs of removing structures within the impact area (Figure 17). 39 ice'�it!�� •� .y r ... � . - �`r•u••� -• ,,.-ems,}ti�y�;' ��r� _ �• tip•� r 1 � .t {♦ { •''�:. � ; � � fir j h ME M- 1 16 �I.`t riL • � � fM y• • Figure 17 - Cooper Creek Impact Area Associated with Alternative 11 and Alternative 13 6.1.7. Alternative 13: Raising Structures in Place This alternative would determine structures in the impact area are prone to flood damages with various AEP events and raising homes off foundation and placing support columns underneath to protect from flooding. 6.1.8. Alternative 17: (17A1) Detention (2C1)+bridge improvements(8A1)+channelization(8A1) The goal with this alternative is to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by adding flood storage with detention (Configuration from alternative 2C1) and increasing channel and crossing capacity along Cooper Creek and through Windsor Drive (8A1). Figure 18 shows the location of alternative 17A1. 40 � .',�,�,• o ;y�• i-.i off. _ ~� .� a 471 � ,�,,��; . ° ' '•'•_ '��,,-1 0 ,�. � Wi LQ W17 . loon ft I Figure 18 - Location of alternative 17A1 In addition to the detention configuration described under alternative 2C1, channelization would also be performed around Windsor Dr. The channelization includes approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The crossing capacity would be increased from 4- 8 ft x 8 ft culverts to 4 - 8 ft x 8 ft culverts and 2 - 8 ft wide by 6 ft high culverts. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 110,400 cubic yards. 6.2. Costs of Final Array of Alternatives The project costs for the alternatives in the final array are provided in Table 9 below. Table 9 - Cooper Creek Alternative Costs (FY25 dollars) -WMP�roject Cost Alternative 1: No Action $0 Alternative 2A (2A1): Detention above $3,043,000 Sherman 41 Alternative Project Cost Alternative 2B (2C1): Detention above Stuart (elevation 637) $8,662,000 Alternative 2C (2D1): Detention above Stuart (elevation 634) $10,112,000 Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1) + channelization at Windsor Drive $9,194,000 Alternative 5 (5A1): Detention (2C1) + Bridge Improvements at Sherman Drive $15,226,000 Alternative 8 (8A1): Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Dr. $4,225,000 (50YR) $55,781,000 Alternative 11: Buyouts (25YR) $39,308,000 (10YR) $22,881,000 (50YR) $34,606,000 Alternative 13: Raising Structures in Place (25YR) $26,640,000 (10YR) $16,914,000 Alternative 17 (17A1): Detention (2C1) + bridge improvement (8A1) + channelization $10,608,000 (8A1) 6.3. Economic Analysis of Final Array of Alternatives Once the PDT had developed project costs for the final array and economics analysis was performed (Table 10). Table 10 - Cooper Creek Economic Analysis (FY25 dollars) 11M3- First Costs Annual Damages Net Benefits BCR (Mean) Costs Reduced (Mean) (Mean) Alt 2A1 $3,043,000 $134,474 $12,874 ($121,600) 0.10 42 Alt2C1 $8,662,000 $390,113 $301,202 ($88,911) 0.77 Alt 2D1 $10,112,000 $455,417 $335,779 ($119,638) 0.74 Alt 3A1 $9,194,000 $416,833 $335,778 ($81,055) 0.81 Alt 5A1 $15,226,431 $1,587,349 $236,631 ($1,350,718) 0.15 Alt 8A1 $4,225,000 $186,708 $85,595 ($101,113) 0.46 Alt 17A1 $10,608,000 $486,580 $337,429 ($149,151) 0.69 Elevation (50 $34,606,000 $1,540,667 $752,000 ($788,667) 0.49 YR) Elevation $26,460,000 $1,176,031 $679,055 ($496,976) 0.58 (25YR) Elevation (10 $16,914,000 $751,753 $542,000 ($209,753) 0.72 YR) Buyout (50 $55,781,254 $2,200,325 $752,000 ($1,448,325) 0.34 YR) Buyout (25 $39,307,987 $1,550,527 $679,055 ($871,472) 0.44 YR) Buyout (10 $22,880,759 $902,545 $542,000 ($360,545) 0.60 YR) 6.4. National Criteria The PDT utilized data collected from the study and economic analysis to perform an evaluation of the National Criteria (Table 11). 43 Table 11 -Cooper Creek National Criteria Evaluation ir Effective Efficient (Net Alternative Complete D. Acceptable Reduced) Alternative 1: No Action N/A N/A N/A N/A Alternative 2A (2A1): YES Least No, ($121,600) YES Detention above Sherman effective Alternative 213 YES, may require (2C1):Detention above Stuart YES Effective No, ($88,911) mitigation for (elevation 637) proposed species Alternative 2C (2D1): YES, may require Detention above Stuart YES Effective No, ($119,638) mitigation for (elevation 634) proposed species Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1) + YES, may require chann tents ion at Windsor YES Effective No, ($81,055) mitigation for proposed species Drive Alternative 5 (5A1): Detention (2C1) + Bridge Less No, YES, may require YES Improvements at Sherman effective ($1,350,718) mitigation for proposed species Drive Alternative 8 (8A1): Channelization and bridge YES Effective No, ($101,113) YES improvement at Windsor Dr. Most effective No, Alternative 11: Buyouts More ($1,448,325) (50YR, 25 YR and 10 YR) YES effective No,($871,472) YES More No, ($360,545) effective Most effective No, ($788,667) Alternative 13: Raising More Structures in Place (50YR, YES effective No ($496,976) YES 25YR, and 10YR) More No,( $209,753) effective 44 Effective Efficient (Net • - • • Complete Alternative A Reduced) --is Alternative 17 (17A1): Detention (2C1) + bridge YES, may require YES Effective No, ($149,151) mitigation for improvement (8A1) + channelization (8A1) proposed species *Damages reduced can be found in Table 10 6.5. Comprehensive Benefits Analysis No action alternative was identified as having positive net benefits in the project area. There are no significant differences in the RED, EQ and OSE accounts, although any alternative with a detention basin above Stuart Road may need mitigation for the tri-colored bat (Table 12). Prior to TSP the team discovered that a portion (approximately 26%) of the project area did include an at risk community, based on recent updates to the CEJST tool. The team utilized this information to analyze the alternative with the highest BCR (Alternative 3) to determine if there were disproportionate impacts to the at risk community under the OSE account via indexing the property values within the at risk community. The results of this analysis did not provide sufficient benefits to allow the recommendation of an alternative action, raising the BCR from 0.81 to 0.91. Table 12 -Cooper Creek Comprehensive Benefits Summary Alternative Alternative 1: No Action N/A N/A N/A N/A Alternative 2A (2A1): Detention Temp benefits Lower above Sherman BCR=0.10 construction None risk HHS Alternative 213 (2C1):Detention Temp benefits May need Lower above Stuart (elevation 637) BCR=0.77 construction mitigation risk HHS Alternative 2C (2D1): Detention Temp benefits May need Lower above Stuart (elevation 634) BCR=0.74 construction mitigation risk HHS Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1) Temp benefits May need Lower + channelization at Windsor Drive BCR=0.81 construction mitigation risk HHS Alternative 5 (5A1): Detention (2C1) Temp benefits May need Lower + channelization at Sherman Drive BCR=0.15 construction mitigation risk HHS 45 Alternative—MEd NED RED Alternative 8 (8A1): Channelization Temp benefits Lower and bridge improvement at Windsor BCR=0.46 construction None risk Dr. HHS BCR=0.34 Lower Alternative 11: Buyouts BCR=0.44 Temp benefits None risk construction HHS BCR=0.60 BCR=0.49 Lower Alternative 13: Raising Structures in BCR=0.49 Temp benefits None risk Place construction HHS BCR=0.72 Alternative 17 (17A1): Detention Temp benefits May need Lower (2C1) + bridge improvement (8A1) BCR=0.69 construction mitigation risk + channelization (8A1) HHS *HHS =Human Health and Safety 7. TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN The tentatively selected plan is no action. An analysis of the comprehensive benefits does not support any of the action alternatives. 8. CONCLUSION Analysis of the data collected during this study indicates that the benefits provided by any of the action alternatives would not suffice to produce Federal interest to invest in the project. Therefore, the PDT recommends no action on Cooper Creek at this time. 46 9. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the conclusions set forth, and after considering the expected social, economic and environmental impacts the PDT recommends no Federal action be taken for Cooper Creek Flood Risk Management Section 205 and completion of a closeout report. The Fort Worth District review of existing data indicates no Federal interest exists for participation in a flood risk management project within the study area of Cooper Creek in Denton, Texas. At the TSP milestone meeting, the decision maker agreed with the District's recommendation of the no action plan as the TSP for Cooper Creek, provided the following actions were taken: a. The PDT will complete a closeout report which documents the data and findings resulting from the study.; b. The PDT will perform a District Quality Control (DQC) review of the closeout report.; c. The PDT will provide the closeout report to the NFS.; d. The District will follow the feasibility study termination process in EP 1105-2-58. Following coordination with affected non-Federal interests, City of Denton, the feasibility phase should be terminated if analyses indicate a lack of Federal interest or a lack of public support. The phase is officially terminated when the District Commander advises the MSC Commander and the appropriate HQ RIT of termination of the study. The CAP database must be updated to show project status as terminated, with the date and the reason why, and all future capability amounts will be reduced to zero. The District Commander will also notify the non-Federal interest, City of Denton, when the study has been officially terminated. The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at the time and current Department of the Army policies governing formulation, evaluation and development of individual projects under the US Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authorities Program. It does not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national Civil Works program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch. 11 MARCH 2O25 DATE CALVIN A. KROEGER COL, EN Commanding 47 10. REFERENCES Butler D.R., Ecoregions of Texas 2022. https://texasalmanac.com/topics/environment/physical- regions-texas Accessed July 3, 2024. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2024. Texas Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. https://www3.epa.gov/airquaIity/greenbook/anayo_tx.htmI Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2023. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic Database) for Denton County, Texas, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed July 24, 2024. Runkle, J., K.E. Kunkel, S.M. Champion, B.C. Stewart, D.R. Easterling, J. Nielsen-Gammon, 2022: Texas State Climate Summary 2022. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 150-TX. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed [July/24/2024]. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2024. 2024 Draft Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303 (d). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - A. 2024. Texas Ecoregions. https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/wildlife- conservation/texas-ecoregions Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2024. Trinity River Basin. https://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/rivers/river basins/trinity/index.asp United States Census Bureau. "PROFILE OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS." https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dentoncitytexas/HSGO10223#qf-flag-X. Accessed on July 24, 2024. United States Climate Data, Denton, Texas 2024. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/denton/texas/united-states/ustx0353 Accessed July 3, 2024. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation tool. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov 48 USACE (2015). Recent US Climate Change and Hydrology Literature Applicable to US Army Corps of Engineers Missions —Texas-Gulf Region 12. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS 2015-08, USACE, Washington, DC United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2023. "Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report." V2.1 96 pp + appendices. United States Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of Texas 2024. https://webapps.usgs.gov/txgeology/Accessed July 3, 2024. 49 11 .ACRONYMS AEP Annual Exceedance Probability ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BCR Benefit Cost Ratio BMP Best Management Practices CAP Continuing Authorities Program CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CJEST Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool CWA Clean Water Act dBA Decibel DNL Day-Night average sound Level EAD Expected Annual Damage EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ER Engineering Regulation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FT/ft Feet/Foot GHG Greenhouse Gases HUC Hydrologic Unit Code HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NED National Economic Development 50 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS Non-Federal Sponsor NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Registry of Historic Places O&M Operation & Maintenance PDT Project Delivery Team RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database TCB Tri-Colored Bat TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department tpy Tons Per Year U.S./US United States U.S.0 United States Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Service 51 Appendix A: Cost Engineering Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 Appendix A Cost Appendix Project Goals and Objectives The goal is to provide an economical flood control that can protect properties closer to Cooper Creek in the city of Denton. The objectives include reduce risk of flood induced damages in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis, reduce risk to human health and safety in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis, improve emergency response time in the vicinity of Cooper Creek over the 50-year period of analysis. The final array of structural alternatives is made of the following 6 alternatives: • Alternative 1— No Action • Alternative 2— Detention Basin alone • Alternative 3 — Detention Basin and channel improvements • Alternative 5— Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications • Alternative 8—Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications • Alternative 17— Detention Basin, Bridge culvert modifications, channel improvements. The three Non-Structural alternatives are the followings: • Non-Structural 25 year • Non-Structural 15 year • No Structural 10 year Cost estimating activities have been developed to provide the cost of each alternatives needed to support Feasibility Studies. Methodology The PDT members provided all the quantities for all structural alternatives. The cost estimates were developed in accordance with the guidance contained in ER 1110-2-1302, Civil Works Cost Engineering, using the MCACES II V 4.4 software was used. This is the most current version of the MCACES software. The following libraries were used: • 2023 Cost Book, • National Labor Seattle 2022, • Equipment 2022 Region 06. Each of the six alternatives in the estimate are broken out based on the Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure (CWWBS). The Relocations CWWBS code was used for utilities. Assumptions and Constraints During construction, we assumed the selected prime and subcontractors after the bidding process are all operating in Denton, TX areas. All labors, materials, tools and equipment except long lead items or special equipment are sourced in the local construction market. We also assumed that the equipment is prime owned. All work will be done along Cooper Creek at specific alternative location. One overhead electrical pole was identified and needs relocation. The current estimate doesn't take into consideration the fees associated with the relocation. because the project is in a dense urban area, we anticipate that they will be local traffic constraints that need to be addressed. Risks An Abbreviated Risk Analysis meeting was held with all PDT members to access all Contingencies and uncertainty that may exist. The risks were determined by a collaboration of the PDT members and issues that may arise before and during construction. All risks for each alternative were based on available information and difficulty of the task. The computation of the contingency for each alternative was influenced by the known variables and their associated risk and they were incorporated in the Total Project Cost Summary. The Planning Engineering and Design contingency for each structural and no structural alternatives is 21%. • The contingencies of all structural alternatives run from 15 to 26% . • The contingencies of all non-structural alternative run from 15 to 30% PROJECT: XXXXXX PROJECT NO: 0 LOCATION: Cooper Creek This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in report; Report Name and date Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure WBS Civil Works NUMBER Feature &Sub-Feature Description FULL ($K) 02 RELOCATIONS $4,663.38 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES $76 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES $4,588 09 CHANNELS & CANALS $5,620 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: _ $14,948 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $32 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $460 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $212 PROJECT COST TOTALS: $15,652 Alt 2A1 02 RELOCATIONS $1,531 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $322 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $1,852 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $32 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $460 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $21211 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $2,557 v Alt 21131 02 RELOCATIONS $288II 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES $38 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $7,873 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $8,19911 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $677 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,426 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,14811 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $12,450 v Alt 3A1 02 RELOCATIONS $237 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS $5,397 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $2,271 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $7,906 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $32 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,394 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,13411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $11,465 v Alt 5A1 02 RELOCATIONS $1,118 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES $2,943 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $6,939 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $11,001 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $32 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $3,190 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,51611 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $15,739 v Alt 8A1 02 RELOCATIONS $560 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES $823 09 CHANNELS & CANALS $223 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $1,606 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $1,531 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $475 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $22011 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $3,832 v Alt 17A1 02 RELOCATIONS $579 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES $823 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $7,087 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $8,488 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $2,208 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $14,429 v Non-Structural 50 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $15,794 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $15,794 11 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $37,876 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $57,403 v Non-Structural 25 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $11,116 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $11,116 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $25,630 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $40,479 v Non-Structural 10 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $5,948 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $5,948 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $13,897 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $23,578 v Non-Structural Raising 50 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $18,639 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $18,639 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $22,372 v Non-Structural Raising 25 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $13,119 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $13,119 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,20411 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $16,852 v Non-Structural Raising 10 yr 02 RELOCATIONS $11,000 06 FISH &WILDLIFE FACILITIES 08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES 09 CHANNELS & CANALS 19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS: $11,000 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES II 30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,529 31 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,204 CONTRACT COST TOTALS: $14,733 Appendix B : Environmental Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could be affected from implementing the proposed alternative in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§1500 - 1508), and the Civil Works Program of the USACE's NEPA regulation (33 CFR 230) and associated implementation guidance (ER 200-2-2). The level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impact. The project study area occurs along Cooper Creek which flows through the City of Denton, Texas. Cooper Creek is located in central Denton County, which is in the northcentral portion of the state (Figure 1). Cooper Creek runs through a developed area of Denton, Texas. Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek induces damages to adjacent properties, increases risk to human health and safety, and inundates roadways resulting in road closures, traffic delays and increased emergency response times. At least one known fatality has been attributed to flood waters from Cooper Creek. In addition, high flow events are contributing to erosion downstream of Avondale Park with the channel encroaching on residential lots and fence lines. ME f NY o.. - PA -- .� M OK r TN f� NV AR —�� NM GA i TX LA j N 1 Figure 1. Project Study Area Map 3.1. Climate The climate of the study area is humid subtropical with warm to hot summers and mild winters. The average annual high temperature is about 76 degrees Fahrenheit, with an average summer high of about 96 degrees for the months of June, July, and August, and an average annual winter low temperature of 54 degrees. Periods of freezing temperatures are infrequent and rainfall averages about 38 inches annually (U.S. Climate, 2024). Severe weather occurs periodically in the form of severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, flood-producing extreme precipitation events, and occasional winter ice storm (Runkle et al, 2022). 1 3.2. Geology The project area is in a region known as the Eastern Cross Timbers Ecoregion. This region extends southward from the Red River through eastern Denton County and along the boundary between Dallas and Tarrant counties. It then stretches through Johnson County to the Brazos River and into Hill County (Butler, 2022). The region includes rolling hills, cuestas, and ridges. Soils within the Cross Timbers are mostly sandy, loamy, and are underlain by sand, shale, clay, sandstone, calcareous shale, and limestone. Today, livestock farming is the main land use, but some cropland also occurs (TPWD-A 2024). The City of Denton sits on top of the Grayson Marl rock formation. Grayson Marl, mostly marl, is light-greenish-gray to medium-gray, weathers to grayish-yellow. Thickness of Grayson Marl in Texas is between 15 and 60 feet (USGS, 2024). 3.3. Soils The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (Public Law 97-98, Title XV, Subtitle I, Section 1539-1549 requires federal actions to minimize unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, specifically prime farmlands. The Act defines prime farmlands as "...land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion..." The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for designating soils as prime farmland soils. The project area consists of a variety of ground cover types with the majority consisting of disturbed soils covered by urban development as the City of Denton has grown around the banks of Cooper Creek. The proposed footprint of the project does not include land or soil suitable for agricultural activities. Based on the Soil Survey of Denton County, Texas (Soil Conservation Service, 1988), soils surrounding the project area are classified in the Sanger and Wilson-Urban land complex soil series, which are classified as a clayey and well-drained soils weathered from claystone with low slopes (Figure 2). According to Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) information acquired from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2024), soils within the Sanger and Wilson-Urban series are not considered prime farmlands (Soil Survey Staff, 2024). 2 � s �"`- - --� �- '• ,�'• _yam } -Soil Types ° Sanger-Urban land complex,1-5%slope j - - r . -Wilson-Urban land complex,0-2%slope 'r Dallas Cooper Creek Soils Map N CGI;\R,I'SGS,I:.I..Cmmnnniq plops Cnnm6nv.,Lien rortlfl'rxas,(Src of Uennm,l?xas A I.ks&IX ildbf,,ti Open S- M I3 Nh ft h. "pnn I 2024 c- !1'ecL I gi. I-,Nl'II!\1S\,CSCS EPA,NI S,I S1 Bmea lSU\t-SIRS,lrl�s 1 ,ks&RJdl&,I'.i,'I'—,Inm,G,,nm,Safe(mpl,I'\G,Nil'IIj N:\S:\I.SC S,1.1'r\,NI'S, Coordinate Scsve WGS 1984 Web lleccatot Ansilia-Sphere 0.23 Figure 3. Cooper Creek Soils Map 3.4. Surface Water Cooper Creek lies in the Elm Fork Trinity Watershed (HUC 12030103). Streams in this watershed vary from slow, meandering streams flowing to smaller, riffle and pool types in the smaller watersheds. Cooper Creek is a 6.3-mile long tributary to the Trinity River which eventually leads into Lewisville Lake. The project area consists of a shallow stream about 10 feet wide. Flow through the site is generally slow moving and perennial. Despite erosion occurring in the area, turbidity is low and the water clarity is good. The stream bed is composed of some clays and silts towards the center of the channel, while red clays are found along the shoreline and at the East Sherman Drive bridge. 3 3.5. Floodplains The project area is classified as Zone AE Regulatory Floodway on the Federal Emergency Management Flood Insurance Rate Map as part of the Denton County Unincorporated Areas (48121C0360G) (Figure 4). Immediately in the project area, floodplain characteristics are restricted on either side by residential housing communities (FEMA 2023). National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette , ;:MA depend SCS F6 gLUCpt rOn ULN.,LU tL.:iY�axU N:,La mn4 r.:R 1 iYM vrw_L W W.r.•, Wnhowut Base Flood Elerabon MFE) f� SPECIAL FLOOD sunk Eor Depth HAZARD AREAS ReguNtory FlCodray 1 02ti Annual Ghana Food m1h. dress _ / 1 CI Pin annual Chance,%0 wnh a.e.a•= taf�r- depth less lunit In anon squr mth dra vzg± 1 r sof kss than one square mlk z.. _FYwre CDndi Haaan:Annual chan ce Flood Huard:_:., Area Nitn Red uced 1-d-kdueto OTHER AREAS OF,/'Levee.seenCles.-••••-! FLOOD HAZARD Fafao Area mro Flood Risk due;o Le•== Fs.A—f el—al Flood Hanrd_. `/� � a � a Eflectire LOMRs OT14ERAREAS AC.nedan n0e lu"tdueh'eMrm.onr.Sd[oMnno Sd eHxdern d SZoneAE STRUCTURE :•.�� Lenee.Wke.ar Floodwall ""��Q�� ss xnwns wnn LM Annual onanu NS^ 4 ! S<S Water Surtax EkraWn Drntoa,Crt�of --- `rostalTra"win, 480194 \,d�ice`° Zone AE _ —Bxe Food Ekra w"Lx(bFEI L<nn m sway cu smenn ectlaq 1 ----canal oanucn easeune FLOODWA OTHER_—Proekea:efm< ZO/IB AE FEATURES N}'dmgmpnc Feature W W 4 � Digital Data Avallanle 1 r l .,I r ' 1 "�., rm No Dlgrtal Data Araikble 1 bNAP PANELS i UnmaDDed AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD Zone 0. puse wr.dnplayea theme,mapd dan nor. w a,ini el," by the user and tloes net represent a"authordatrve Droperty loxuon. Th—p complies with FEMa'i standards lCr lne YSe of drgnal Road maps d n w nm wsM as dnrnbed below The bxemap shown Complks rrth FEMA's bxemap 1 V aoeydondara, the hood na:ard inramatwn is dem<d ddecuy fmm me authmomatre NFNL so 20e 4 W pmrdetl by FEMA-Thus map n- x Papot.d on)aC.202d a•d.2a nn+and doef�qt reelect changes or amendments subsequent to this date aM time-The%ML and of e—information may change or d become superseded b,xw data mel ume ' - In.map image n rod d me one m more of the rolkwing map legends ae no[appear:ba—data imagery.fond Exe fi— kRMp n Inle foal.map creationdate. data Ma image f Feet unmapped ppedam ber and FIRMunmod—nied effas date.Map Images for 1:6,000 mapxd see Ynmwe.n rea area xn ql be Yaea fo egulatoqpurposes. easemap frr agely Sell-p:OSOS NaDunal Map 2023 Figure 4. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Project Area 3.6. Water Quality Regional water quality is influenced by lithology, soil composition and land use activities. In Denton County, rugged upland areas have been cleared for urban use. Community housing, businesses, and recreation are important land uses. Cooper Creek is part of the Upper Elm Fork Trinity Watershed. Water quality in the Trinity River Basin is generally good while average 4 stream gradients and dissolved oxygen levels are typically lower than waters in the lower basin, whereas turbidity, total suspended solids, total organic carbon, total phosphorus and biochemical oxygen demand values are typically higher (TWDB, 2024). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters where existing pollution controls are not stringent enough to achieve state water quality standards and establish a priority ranking of these waters. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for assessing water quality monitoring data and developing a 303(d) list every two years in accordance with the CWA. The Texas Draft 2024 303(d) List represents the most recent evaluation of water quality data. Cooper Creek itself is not listed as an impaired waterbody for any appraised metrics. There are no waterbodies upstream of Cooper Creek that would contribute to the understanding of its water quality (TCEQ, 2024). 3.7. Wetlands Wetlands are often defined as areas where the frequent and prolonged presence of water at or near the soil surface drives the natural system including the type of soils (i.e. hydric soils) that form, the plants that grow and the fish and/or wildlife that use the habitat. A review of the National Wetlands Invintory database shows that the existing project footprint (Figure 5) covers approximately 27.3 acres with 1.1 acres occurring within Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and 5 acres of that occurring in Riverine wetlands. {Icon Way Z O1 3 Elementary e 660if hr y 133_ Yucca Dr > m School d -o cKamy Blvd u - > Imperial Dr y _ o Imperial Or Q ripe Tel m - — 642k Cromwell Dr 2 Kings Row > - - IGnys Row Aspen Dr Laguna Or Cobbl - _ Laguna Or 637 k Stratford Ln GpOPa - Sierra Or Pickw 664k Manhattan Or rs Park -"er w drool y Evers Park St o 0 O < WolftraP O o v_ a 3 E 21 FO b -O bo; - 700 rr E Win Legend m Blueboffe h Wetland Types J Freshwater Pond N 0 E W;ndso Freshwater Emergent ��Lake o Wetland 0 Riverine - Driftwood Trl i Freshwater Forested/ -Projed Study Area - - Wilson Shrub Wetland Boundary Chisholm Trl- cx Elementary Cooper Creek Wetland Map A" oDenton I� Plano n , � ., 2024 Dallas r u,i i ,., a I r I r. 0 Lu Lml Gn.u,110 NM lISC Ll1-Nlti,IS1 � L r. Cnonlm:rte S,,w—\CGS 1984\\'rb\lerca[or Ausili,ue sphere Figure 5: Cooper Creek Wetland Map 5 3.8. Biological Resources 3.8.1. Vegetation The project study area is located within the Cross Timbers and Prairies ecoregion, which covers the upper center portion of the state of Texas. Grassland species such as little bluestem, Indiangrass and big bluestem are common. Texas mulberry, American elm and Osage orange are more common here than they were to the east. In the west, live oak becomes more important, replacing the post oak of the east. Decreasing moisture discourages clusters of trees, and trees form isolated stands. Flameleaf sumac, redbud, Mexican plum and Eastern red cedar become more prevalent. Wildlife is a mixture of eastern forest and prairie species. 3.6.3. Aquatic Resources Cooper Creek has habitat conditions that can support many species of fish and invertebrates (Table 1). Fish communities characteristically in the area include a sunfish and minnow- dominated community along with darters and occasional catfishes and an assemblage of macroinvertebrates. No protected or sensitive species are known to occur in the creek. Table 1. Aquatic species potentially occurring in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Microcaddisfly Paucicalcaria ozarkensis Nearctic Paduniellan Caddisfly Paduniella nearctica Mayfly Parale to hlebia calcarica Elevated Spring Am hi od Stygobromus elatus Boston Mountains Crayfish Cambarus cause i Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae White perch Pomoxis annularis Pyramid Pi toe Pleurobema rubrum Purple Lilli ut Toxolasma lividum Iso od Lirceus bicus idatus Queen Snake Regina se temvittata Alligator Gar Atractosteus spatula American Eel Anguilla rostrata 3.8.2. Wildlife Considerable urban growth and expansion throughout the area surrounding Cooper Creek has caused local wildlife to become fragmented. Cooper Creek serves as a green corridor that provides ample habitat for several common species of birds and mammals. Table 2 provides a partial list of common bird and mammal species known to occur in areas near the project area that may use the project area for foraging, nesting, resting, or migration. 6 Table 2. Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Common N—a—m—e—T Scientific Name Birds Black vulture Coragyps atratus Ring-neck duck Aythya collaris Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Wood duck Aix sponsa Cardinal Cardinalis Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Robin Turdus migratorius Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Mammals Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Opossum Didelphis virginiana Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Raccoon Procyon lotor White-tailed deer Odocoileus Nine-banded Dasypus vir inianus armadillo novemcinctus Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Woodchuck Marmota monax Beaver Castor canadensis Striped skunk Mephitis Bobcat Felis rufus 3.9. Threatened and Endangered Species The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was utilized to determine species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may occur in or near the Cooper Creek study area (USFWS, 2024). A total of five Federally threatened or endangered species and one candidate species were identified; however, the project area only contains suitable habitat for one species (Table 3). No Federally designated critical habitat for any of the listed species is present in the action area. The bald eagle has been delisted but the protections provided by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act remain in effect. 7 Table 3. Federally Listed Species identified on the IPaC Species Name Status Habitat Description Suitable Habitat in the Action Area Mammals Tricolored Bat PE Summer habitat: wide variety of forested/wooded habitats for Summer Habitat: Yes Perimyotis subflavus roosting. Roost among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees, but may also be found in Spanish moss, pine Winter Habitat: No trees, and occasionally manmade structures. Winter habitat hibernacula : caves or abandoned mines. Birds Whooping crane E Dense marshes and wetlands with nest sites found primarily No -Urban area with sparse Grus americana located in shallow diatom ponds that contain bulrush. During forested riparian area lacking migration, whooping cranes use a variety of habitats; however wetlands/marshes wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable. Piping plover T Coastal shorelines and open mudflats and sandy areas. No- Open areas around the Charadrius melodus creek are grassy and disturbed. Lack sandy areas. Rufa red knot T Wintering and migration habitats are muddy or sandy coastal No - shorelines are Calidris canutus rufa areas, specifically, bays and estuaries, tidal flats, and urbanized and surrounded unimproved tidal inlets with sand spits, islets, shoals, and by patches of Riparian sandbars Forest Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle PT Freshwater rivers and lakes with deep floors. No—generally too shallow Macrochel s temminckii Insects Monarch butterfly C Monarchs need healthy and abundant milkweed embedded No—grassy riparian area Danaus plexippus within diverse nectaring habitat. Many monarchs use a variety of with potential for host plant is roosting trees along the fall migration route. Although monarch regularly disturbed and butterfly can occur within the project areas, they will not be mowed. affected by construction due to the lack of milkweed presence and unlikelihood of milkweed to occur in the sites due to the regular mowing of the grassy areas adjacent to Cooper Creek. E= Endangered T= Threatened PE= Proposed Endangered PT= Proposed Threatened C= Candidate Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC website and Arkansas Ecological Service Office database. 8 3.10. Recreational Resources Occasional fishing, hiking or wildlife watching may occur immediately along the creek; however, the creek is bordered on all sides by private land making other recreational activities unavailable due to restricted land access. 3.11. Socioeconomics Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment, particularly population, demographics, and economic development. Demographics entail population characteristics and include data pertaining to race, gender, income, housing, poverty status, and educational attainment. Economic development or activity typically includes employment, wages, business patterns, an area's industrial base, and its economic growth. The socio-economic characteristics of Denton, Texas, the nearest town located near the project study area are presented in Table 4. The City of Denton had a population of 158,349 living in 52,000 households in 2022. The racial makeup of the city was 67.8 percent White, 11.5 percent African American, 0.8 percent Native American, 3.5 percent Asian, 0.0 percent other, and 11.1 percent from two or more races. Of the total population, 24.1 percent were of Hispanic or Latino origin. Roughly 15.7 percent of families in the city live below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). Table 4. Population Data for Denton, Texas Population Metric Denton, Texas Total Population 158,349 Total Households 52,000 White 67.8% Black or African American 11.5% Native American or Alaska 0.8% Native Asian 3.5% Native Hawaiian or Other 0.0% Pacific Islander Other Race 0.0% Two or More Races 11.1% Hispanic 24.1% Under 5 years 4.9% 5 to 19 years 18.5% 20 to 64 years 64.4% Over 64 years 12.2% High School Diploma 91.5% Bachelor's Degree or Higher 40.0% Median Household Income $71,717 9 3.12. Incorporating the Needs and Considerations of All at Risk Communities An analysis using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) was conducted to identify at risk communities in or near the project area (Figure 6). The tool identifies at risk communities if they are in a census tract that meets the thresholds for at least one of the tool's categories of burden, or if they are on land within the boundaries of Federally Recognized Tribes. The CEJST showed that a portion of the area surrounding the project area was classified as being at risk. Categories that were found to exceed the socioeconomic threshold included Climate Change (Projected wildfire risk and low income), energy, health, housing, legacy pollution, transportation, water and wastewater, and workforce development. All of these metrics were found to fall within the "low income" category. Tmd Infonnation Number:48121020503 County:Denton County � State:Texas Population 6.727 + Tract demographics rdent.lied as duadvantaeed' 46 AK This tract is considered HI disadvantaged because d meets 1 PR burden threshold AND the associated socioeconomic GU threshold. AS SOW feedbac k KIP VI + Health + Hsi, + Legacy pollution + Figure 6. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool Results for the Cooper Creek Project Area. 10 3.13. Noise Federal and local governments have established noise guidelines and regulations for the purpose of protecting citizens from potential hearing damage and from various other adverse physiological, psychological, and social effects associated with noise. The Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise developed land-use compatibility guidelines for noise in terms of day-night average sound level (DNL). It is recommended that no residential uses, such as homes, multifamily dwellings, dormitories, hotels, and mobile home parks, be located where the noise is expected to exceed a DNL of 65 decibels (dBA). For outdoor activities, the EPA recommends DNL of 55 dBA as the sound level below which there is no reason to suspect that the general population would be at risk from any of the effects of noise (EPA, 1974). Noise- sensitive receptors are facilities or areas where excessive noise may disrupt normal activity, cause annoyance, or loss of business. Land uses such as residential, religious, educational, recreational, and medical facilities are more sensitive to increased noise levels than are commercial and industrial land uses. Review of the project area show that it is in an urban area comprised of residential homes and businesses. There would be temporary noise disturbance from construction associated with the project. 3.14. Air Quality The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality nationwide. The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as amended, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for wide-spread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards classified as either "primary" or"secondary." Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations such as people with pre-existing heart or lung diseases (such as asthma), children, and older adults. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants. These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). If the concentration of one or more criteria pollutant in a geographic area is found to exceed the regulated "threshold" level for one or more of the NAAQS, the area may be classified as a non-attainment area. Areas with concentrations of criteria pollutants that are below the levels established by the NAAQS are considered either attainment or unclassifiable areas. The project area is located within Denton County, Texas and is part of an area designated as Nonattainment, meaning concentrations of criteria pollutants are above the levels established by the NAAQS (EPA 2024). Due to the area's NAAQS Nonattainment status, a General Conformity determination will be required. 11 3.15. Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) No Recognized Environmental Conditions were identified within one mile of the project area that could be reasonably expected to affect the Cooper Creek CAP 205 project. Although not classified as HTRW under USACE regulations, several oil and gas infrastructure sites were identified within the surrounding area. As a result of these findings, pipelines and wells within the project vicinity and along potential site access routes should be precisely located during PED to ensure no unintended interaction occurs with the existing oil and gas facilities. Despite the lack of identified sites that could be reasonably expected to affect the project, there is always a possibility that previously unidentified HTRW could be uncovered, even when a proposed project is entirely within a preexisting project footprint. An updated HTRW survey will be required should the project be reconsidered and funded at a future time. Additionally, care should be taken to identify and address HTRW concerns that may arise in a timely manner, so as not to affect proposed project timelines. 3.16. Cultural Resources The study area is located on the southern plains in north Texas in the City of Denton along Cooper Creek. The study area is heavily developed for residential and commercial use and the banks and channel of Copper Creek have been modified to control erosion. There are numerous cultural resources recorded within this region that include National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed properties, archeological sites, cemeteries, and historical markers. A preliminary assessment of the cultural resources within one kilometer of the proposed study area was conducted using a desktop review of the databases maintained by the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory for cultural resources as well as a review of historic aerial imagery. This assessment identified one previously recorded cultural resource, the Fairhaven Retirement Home, a NRHP listed property, approximately 950 meters from the proposed study area. There are no other previously recorded cultural resources. Only two previous archeological surveys are within one kilometer of the study area. Both surveys were conducted in 1993 for the Federal Highway Administration along United States (U.S.) Highway 77 and North Locust Street. While there have been numerous cultural resource investigations conducted in the surrounding region, there are no other previous investigations in the proposed study area or within one kilometer. The primary considerations concerning cultural resources are threats to buried archeological deposits because of earthmoving activities. However, most of the study area has been developed for residential and commercial use. The soils within the study area are mapped as Sanger-Urban land complex and Wilson-Urban land complex, both clayey soils originating from alluvium from weathered slopes and bedrock. Although the area has not been previously investigated, the residential and commercial development and the presence of urban soils in the study area suggest that the probability for intact archeological sites to occur in this area is low. 12 4. Environmental Consequences This section describes the natural and human environments that exist at the project and the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the action alternatives, as required under NEPA. Impacts (consequences or effects) can be either beneficial or adverse and can be either directly related to the action or indirectly caused by the action. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR § 1508.8 [a]). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR § 1508.8 [b]). As discussed in this section, the alternatives may create temporary (less than one year), short-term (up to three years), long-term (three to ten years), or permanent impacts following the implementation of the Recommended Plan. Whether an impact is significant depends on the context in which the impact occurs and the intensity of the impact (40 CFR § 1508.27). The context refers to the setting in which the impact occurs and may include society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Impacts on each resource can vary in degree or magnitude from a slightly noticeable change to a total change in the environment. For the purpose of this analysis, the intensity of impacts would be classified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. The intensity thresholds are defined as follows: • Negligible: A resource would not be affected or the effects would be at or below the level of detection, and changes would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence. • Minor: Effects on a resource would be detectable, although the effects would be localized, small, and of little consequence to the sustainability of the resource. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be simple and achievable. • Moderate: Effects on a resource would be readily detectable, long-term, localized, and measurable. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be extensive and likely achievable. • Major: Effects on a resource would be obvious and long-term and would have substantial consequences on a regional scale. Mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects would be required and extensive, and success of the mitigation measures would not be guaranteed. 4.1. Future Without Project Conditions — No Action Alternative If No Action is taken to address flooding along Cooper Creek, the most likely future condition of the area is as follows: • Recurrent flooding of Cooper Creek will continue to cause damages to adjacent properties. 13 • Increased risk to human health and safety as a result of inundated roadways, road closures, traffic delays, and increased emergency vehicle response times. • Under the No Action Alternative, physical and Biological Resources are expected to remain the same as described in the Existing Conditions Section of this report. • If no Federal action is taken at Cooper Creek, the streambank will continue to erode downstream of Avondale Park and cause encroachments on residential lots and fence lines. 4.2. Future With Project Conditions 4.2.1 Climate The project encompasses a relatively small area when compared to the global scale. Therefore, any changes with respect to incorporating changing conditions resulting from each alternative would be negligible. At the state level, Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) are a regulated pollutant under the Prevention of Serious Degradation program when emissions exceed thresholds. The threshold for new source emissions is the project emissions are above the major source threshold for a regulated pollutant that is not GHGs and will emit or have the potential to emit 75,000 tons per year (tpy) or more CO2e. Construction activities associated with each alternative would generate GHG emissions because of combustion of fossil fuels while operating on- and off-road mobile sources. The primary GHGs generated during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. The other GHGs such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are typically associated with specific industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction. After construction is complete, all GHG emissions would cease, and the area would return to baseline conditions. Overall, the total direct and indirect adverse impacts would be constrained to very small increases in GHG emissions to the atmosphere from operation of on- and off-road mobile sources. 4.2.2 Geology 4.2.2.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Construction activities associated with Alternative 2 would be shallow in nature and have insignificant effect on the local geology. Alternative 2 would have no impact on the local geology. 4.2.2.2 Alternatives 3, 5, 8, and 17 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Construction activity effects associated with Alternative 3, 5, 8, and 17 would be the same as those for Alternative 2. 4.2.3 Soils 4.2.3.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Disturbances to soil would primarily be from removal of upland trees and the excavation of soil from backhoe operation to meet detention basin specifications. Soils would be temporarily 14 exposed to erosion during construction before being planted with native grasses. Best management practices would be put in place to reduce erosion and prevent downstream sedimentation until exposed soils are set in place with native plantings. All construction activities will be limited to the south easements along Cooper Creek and north of the houses along Wolftrap Drive, which would not typically be a desirable location for farming and would be unavailable for farming. No impacts to prime farmland are expected. 4.2.3.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Disturbances to soils under Alternative 3 would be similar in scope as those mentioned in section 4.2.1.2. In addition, disturbances to soil because of channel improvements would be primarily caused by backhoe operations to widen and straighten the channel. Soils would be temporarily exposed to erosion during construction before being seeded with native grasses. Best management practices would be put in place to reduce erosion and prevent downstream sedimentation until exposed soils are set in place with native plantings. No impacts to prime farmland are expected. 4.2.3.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Disturbances to soils under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.1.2. 4.2.3.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Disturbances to soils under Alternative 8 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.1.2. 4.2.3.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Disturbances to soils under Alternative 17 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.1.2. 4.2.4 Surface Water 4.2.4.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Construction activities associated with Alternative 2 would have temporary direct and indirect impacts to water quality by causing an increase in river turbidity. This would have further indirect effects for a short distance downstream until the sediment is diluted. Temporary, minor adverse effects on surface water are expected during construction but will cease once construction of the project is complete. 4.2.4.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Effects to surface water quality under Alternative 3 would be like those listed under section 4.2.4.1. 4.2.4.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to surface water quality under Alternative 5 would be like those listed under section 4.2.4.1. 4.2.4.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications 15 Effects to surface water quality under Alternative 8 would be like those listed under section 4.2.4.1. 4.2.4.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects to surface water quality under Alternative 17 would be like those listed under section 4.2.4.1. 4.2.5 Floodplains 4.2.5.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Consistent with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, locating Alternative 2 in the floodplain would be the only practicable alternative. Alternative 2 would not increase the base flood elevation to a level that would violate applicable floodplain regulations or ordinances, nor does it degrade the natural floodplain characteristics of the project area. Adding the detention area will minimize overbank flooding that is experienced under the existing condition. Minor beneficial impacts to floodplains are expected. 4.2.5.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Consistent with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, locating Alternative 3 in the floodplain would be the only practicable alternative. Alternative 3 would not increase the base flood elevation to a level that would violate applicable floodplain regulations or ordinances, nor does it degrade the natural floodplain characteristics of the project area. Improving the channel will promote more efficient water flow along Cooper Creek and minimize overbank flooding that is experienced under the existing condition. Minor beneficial impacts to floodplains are expected. 4.2.5.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to floodplains under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.6.2. 4.2.5.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to floodplains under Alternative 8 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.6.2. 4.2.5.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects to floodplains under Alternative 17 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.6.2. 4.2.6 Water Quality 4.2.6.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Temporary localized adverse effects are expected from construction activities occurring in the creek as described in section 4.2.4.1; however, turbidity conditions would return to baseline conditions after construction is complete. Minor effects to water quality are expected. 4.2.6.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements 16 Temporary localized adverse effects are expected from construction activities occurring in the creek as described in section 4.2.4.1; however, turbidity conditions would return to baseline conditions after construction is complete. Best management practices will be used to stabilize the bank during construction. Stabilizing the bank would allow improved water quality by slowing or eliminating the amount of siltation and debris that sloughs into waters from storm runoff or high swift moving waters and reduce turbidity. Improving the water quality within the study area would most likely benefit the surrounding watershed. Minor, long-term beneficial effects to water quality are expected. 4.2.6.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to water quality under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.5.1. 4.2.6.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to water quality under Alternative 8 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.5.2. 4.2.6.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects to water quality under Alternative 17 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.5.2. 4.2.7 Wetlands Consistent with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, the construction of any of the Alternatives would not contribute to the loss, destruction, or degradation of wetlands. The only wetlands within the project area are riverine and they would not be altered as minimal to no vegetation will be removed and the change in water flow would be beneficial as described in other sections. No impacts to wetlands are expected. 4.2.8 Biological Resources 4.2.8.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Stream bank preparation would be required during implementation of Alternative 2. Construction involves the removal of trees and some soil removal or relocation. Any species utilizing the trees would have to seek other foraging, nesting, or resting habitat in the area; however, there are sufficient trees of similar size and species in the immediate area that the loss should not contribute to the injury or mortality of individuals. Noise and other disturbances associated with construction would also temporarily adversely impact terrestrial species utilizing wildlife habitats adjacent to the project site and cause individuals to avoid the area until construction is complete. 4.2.8.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Stream bank preparation would be required during implementation of Alternative 3. Construction involves the removal of trees and some soil removal or relocation. Any species utilizing the trees would have to seek other foraging, nesting, or resting habitat in the area; however, there are 17 sufficient trees of similar size and species in the immediate area that the loss should not contribute to the injury or mortality of individuals. Noise and other disturbances associated with construction would also temporarily adversely impact terrestrial species utilizing wildlife habitats adjacent to the project site and cause individuals to avoid the area until construction is complete. Aquatic organisms presently utilizing shoreline or near shore habitats adjacent to the project site would be temporarily displaced. Since the desired outcome of the project would be to alter local hydraulics of the creek, the aquatic species adapted to the present hydraulic regime of Cooper Creek, or near the project site, would be adversely impacted through changes in aquatic habitat. Aquatic organisms would also likely encounter temporary impacts from vibrations and noise caused by construction equipment and from activities caused by personnel on site. 4.2.8.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to biological resources under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.8.2. 4.2.8.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to biological resources under Alternative 8 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.8.2. 4.2.8.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects to biological resources under Alternative 17 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.8.2. 4.2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.2.9.1 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone Using the IPaC Consultation Package Builder and the Evaluate Determination Keys tools, the USACE determined that the activities related to the construction and implementation of Alternative 2 would have "No Effect" on Whooping crane, Piping plover, and Rufa red knot. These species were shown to not have suitable habitat within or around the project area. The USFWS will need to issue a consistency determination letter for these species on "20 November 2024", confirming the "No Effect" determination (Need to Consult). A "no effect" determination was also made for alligator snapping turtle and Monarch butterfly based on lack of suitable habitat as described in Table A. For tri-colored bat, a "May effect, not likely to adversely affect" determination was made due to suitable habitat being present and the potential for species to occur near the project area. Since the project involves the removal of approximately 9 acres of trees, the loss of habitat would be minor, but would have the potential to impact any nesting individuals in the project area. Guidance provided by the Texas Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Office states that the effect determination for the Northern long-eared bat can guide the effect determination for Tricolored bat (TCB) but suggests conservation measures and best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the impacts to the species. Those recommendations have also been incorporated into the project for TCB and include: limiting tree removal and construction to the 18 winter months while bats are at their hibernacula, when possible, or outside the pupping season ((May 15—July 31) if work cannot be done during the winter months. Additionally, best management practices such as checking trees for cavities that the bats could use for shelter before removing them, and working with the local Fish and Wildlife office if any bats are encountered will be utilized if work occurs outside the winter months. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is necessary. Table x. Effect Determinations for Listed Species Species Status Effect Determination Mammals Tricolored bat PE May effect, not likely to adversely affect. Birds Whooping crane E No effect Piping lover T No effect Rufa red knot T No effect Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle PT No effect Insects Monarch butterfly C No effect 4.2.9.2 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements Effects to Threatened and Endangered species under Alternative 3 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.9.1. 4.2.9.3 Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects to Threatened and Endangered species under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.9.1. 4.2.9.4 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Based upon the analysis of each species described in Table A, USACE had determined that Alternative 8 would have No effect for the tri-colored bat, Monarch butterfly, Whooping crane, Piping plover, Rufa red knot, and Alligator snapping turtle, due to lack of habitat occurring in the project area. 4.2.9.5 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects to Threatened and Endangered species under Alternative 14 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.9.1. 4.2.10 Recreational Resources Recreation Resources near the project area will temporarily be limited during construction activities. These resources are expected to become available again once construction is 19 completed. No other impacts to Recreational Resources are expected to occur as a result of each alternative. 4.2.11 Noise Negligible effects from noise are expected for each alternative from heavy machinery during construction. However, adjacent residential areas are expected to hear construction noises but would not be of a decibel that would cause harm. Best management practices would be used to reduce the effects of noise to the surrounding area. 4.2.12 Air Quality Construction activities associated with each alternative are expected to have only short-term impacts on local air quality. Such impacts would be primarily caused by increased emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides from vehicles entering and exiting the site along with the operation of necessary equipment. Vehicle travel along unpaved road surfaces and excavation of bare ground surfaces would create fugitive dust emissions. In addition to fugitive dust, project construction activities would generate tailpipe emissions from mobile heavy equipment and increased vehicular traffic. In a regional context, the daily equipment emissions associated with project construction and O&M activities, even during maximum-intensity work periods, would be minor and temporary. Impacts on air quality would not be significant. 4.2.13 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Based on the findings of the HTRW survey, the probability of encountering contaminated sites or toxic substances without project construction is considered low. If construction will occur more investigation may be necessary to determine the status and location of underground storage tanks and other possible HTRW within the construction footprint. 4.2.14 Cultural Resources 4.2.15 Alternative 2 Detention Basin Alone The proposed detention basin is located in the floodplain and mapped as Sanger-Urban land complex. These soils typically mixed, poorly developed clayey soils that have been disturbed by previous construction activities. The proposed detention basin has not been previously investigated for cultural resources and there are no previously recorded cultural resources identified within the footprint. Additionally, there are no standing structures or buildings within the footprint. The project area is surrounded by residential houses that are all less than 50 years 20 old and will not be directly impacted. Due to the nature of the soils within the proposed detention area, there is a low probability for intact cultural resources. The USACE has determined that Alternative 2 will have no effect upon historic properties. 4.2.16 Alternative 3 Detention Basin and Channel Improvements The proposed detention basin is located in the floodplain and mapped as Sanger-Urban land complex. These soils typically mixed, poorly developed clayey soils that have been disturbed by previous construction activities. The proposed detention basin has not been previously investigated for cultural resources and there are no previously recorded cultural resources identified within the footprint. There are no standing structures or buildings within the footprint. The project area is surrounded by residential houses that are all less than 50 years old and will not be directly impacted. Due to the nature of the soils within the proposed detention area, there is a low probability for intact cultural resources. The channel of Cooper Creek has been previously modified to stabilize the banks and therefore, there is a low probability to encounter intact cultural resources. The USACE has determined that Alternative 3 will have no effect upon historic properties. 4.2.17Alternative 5 Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects from the proposed detention basin under Alternative 5 would be like those mentioned in section 4.2.12.1. This alternative proposes replacing the Sherman Road bridge and a concrete culvert at Windsor Road where they cross Cooper Creek. The Sherman Road bridge was originally constructed in 1921 and reconstructed in 1960 to expand the bridge to four traffic lanes. The bridge is a reinforced concrete T-beam bridge and has not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. The Windsor Road culvert is a concrete culvert constructed in 1970 and under this alternative would be expanded. The culvert has not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP and is not located within a historic district. However, the ACHP's Program Comment Issued for Streamlining Section 106 Review for Actions Affecting Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges (Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222, pages 68790-68795) relieves the Federal Highway Administration and other federal agencies of consideration of effects of undertakings on common concrete and steel bridges and culverts constructed after 1945 as long as they aren't in historic districts or previously determined eligible. The USACE has determined that there is a potential to affect the Sherman Road bridge and that the bridge should be evaluated for NRHP eligibility prior to construction. 4.2.18 Alternative 8 Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Effects under Alternative 8 would be like those mentioned in sections 8.6.2 and 8.6.3. 4.2.19 Alternative 17 Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Effects under Alternative 17 would be like those mentioned in sections 8.6.2 and 8.6.3. 4.2.20 Best Management Practices Final project designs and specifications will use measures to avoid and minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources. The following is a list of measures that may be used to mitigate impacts to natural and cultural resources from construction activities: 21 • Construction Site Planning and Management including • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans • Noise controls and set construction times of operations • Erosion, Runoff and Sediment Controls • Good Housekeeping and Materials Management • Higher Tiered heavy equipment use • Project equipment and vehicles transiting between the either the staging/laydown areas or to the construction/restoration sites will be minimized to the extent practicable, including but not limited to using designated routes and confining vehicle access to the immediate needs of the project. • An endangered species protection plan will identify personnel from contractor staff who will act as the single point of contact responsible for daily communicating and reporting endangered species issues throughout the construction period to the USACE biologist and contracting officer representative/lead engineer. • Construction boundaries will be clearly marked both with biodegradable flagging and within CADD drawings of awarded contract(s). • Use of construction lighting at night shall be directed toward the construction activity area and shielded from view outside of the action area to the maximum extent practicable. 4.2.21 Cumulative Effects The alternatives listed are a single and complete effort to reduce flood risk along Cooper Creek, no future impacts are expected. The completion of this project would not increase the likelihood of additional projects, infrastructure, or development within the area. 22 Literature Cited Butler D.R., Ecoregions of Texas 2022. https://texasalmanac.com/topics/environment/physical- regions-texas Accessed July 3, 2024. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2024. Texas Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_tx.html Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2023. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic Database) for Denton County, Texas, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed July 24, 2024. Runkle, J., K.E. Kunkel, S.M. Champion, B.C. Stewart, D.R. Easterling, J. Nielsen-Gammon, 2022: Texas State Climate Summary 2022. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 150-TX. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Accessed [July/24/2024]. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2024. 2024 Draft Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303 (d). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department -A. 2024. Texas Ecoregions. https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/wildlife- conservation/texas-ecoregions Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), 2024. Trinity River Basin. https://www.twdb.texas.gov/surfacewater/rivers/river basins/trinity/index.asp United States Census Bureau. "PROFILE OF GENERAL POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS." https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dentoncitytexas/HSG010223#qf-flag-X. Accessed on July 24, 2024. United States Climate Data, Denton, Texas 2024. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/denton/texas/united-states/ustx0353 Accessed July 3, 2024. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation tool. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2023. "Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report." V2.1 96 pp + appendices. 23 United States Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of Texas 2024. https://webapps.usgs.gov/txgeology/Accessed July 3, 2024. 24 �t� NT Or r pP .i Fi �7�n•k'C United States Department of the Interior / FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' 'RCM:i � Arlington Ecological Services Field Office � 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 Houston,TX 77058-3051 Phone: (817)277-1100 Fax: (817)277-1129 Email Address: arles(@fws.gov In Reply Refer To: 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC Project code: 2025-0022435 Project Name: Cooper Creek CAP Subject: Consistency letter for 'Cooper Creek CAP' for specified federally threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat that may occur in your proposed project area consistent with the Arlington Ecological Services Field Office (ESFO) Determination Key(DKey) for project review and guidance for federally listed species. Dear Brandon Ford Ford: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received on November 20, 2024 your effects determination for the 'Cooper Creek CAP' (the Action) using the Arlington ESFO DKey for project review and guidance for federally-listed species within the Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC) system. The Service developed this system in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Based on your answers and the assistance of the Service's Arlington ESFO DKey, you determined the proposed Action will have "No Effect" on the following species: Species Listing Status Determination Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened No effect Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus ru fa) Threatened No effect Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Endangered No effect Consultation Status Thank you for informing the Service of your "No Effect" determinations for this project. No further consultation/coordination for this project is required for these species. This letter only covers the listed species in the above table. The following species may also occur in the Action area: ■ Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii Proposed Threatened Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC ■ Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate ■ Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed Endangered If you determine your project may affect additional listed or proposed listed species not covered by the Arlington ESFO DKey, please contact our office at(817) 277-1100 or your Service point of contact in the Arlington ESFO to discuss methods to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to those species. Candidate species are not afforded protection under the ESA; however, we recommend they be considered in project planning and that conservation measures be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to individuals or their habitat as much as possible. The Service recommends that your agency contact the Arlington ESFO or re-evaluate the Action in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location of the Action changes, 2) new information reveals the Action may affect listed species or designated critical habitat, or 3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional consultation with the Arlington ESFO should take place before project changes are final or resources committed. At Risk Species: The Service's responsibilities under the ESA include evaluating species that have been petitioned to be listed or are candidates for listing under the ESA. These "at risk" species are not afforded protection under the ESA; however, we continue to collect information on their status and potential threats in order to assess their biological status and address requirements under the ESA. For these reasons, we request any information on the status of these species (e.g., surveys) be provided to the Arlington ESFO for consideration. This may also include any conservation measures implemented to avoid or reduce impacts to these species as a result of proposed actions. The proposed project falls within the range of the following at risk species: Western chicken turtle (https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9903) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGEPA): The following resources are provided to project proponents and consulting agencies as additional information. Bald and golden eagles are not included in this section 7(a)(2) consultation and this information does not constitute a determination of effects by the Service. The Service developed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise landowners, land managers, and others who share public and private lands with bald eagles when and under what circumstances the protective provisions of the BGEPA may apply to their activities. The guidelines should be consulted prior to conducting new or intermittent activity near an eagle nest. This document may be downloaded from the following site: https://www.fws.gov/media/ national-bald-eagle-management-guidelines-0 If the recommendations detailed in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines cannot be followed, you may apply for a permit to authorize removal or relocation of an eagle nest in certain instances. The application form is located at https:Hfwsepermits.servicenowservices.com/ fws/. DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 2 of 7 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC Please note this guidance does not authorize bird mortality for species that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. sec. 703-712). If you believe migratory birds will be affected by this activity, we recommend you contact our Migratory Bird Permit Office at P.O. Box 709,Albuquerque, NM 87103, (505) 248-7882. DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 3 of 7 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC Action Description You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action. 1. Name Cooper Creek CAP 2. Description The following description was provided for the project 'Cooper Creek CAP': Flood risk reduction The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/033. ,-97. ,14z Ja J LWYWOOdUb i• - < 37 ■ 7 .r DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 4 of 7 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW 1. Does the proposed project involve research or other actions that include the collection, capture, handling, or harassment of any individual federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species? No 2. Does the proposed project involve the use of manned or unmanned aircraft (e.g., airplanes, helicopters, drones, balloons)? No 3. Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency? Yes 4. Are you the Federal agency or designated non-federal representative? Yes 5. Is the project a communications tower licensed or regulated by the Federal Communications Commission? No 6. Is the lead federal agency for the project Housing and Urban Development? No 7. Is this a wind energy project ? No 8. Is this a solar energy project ? No 9. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the piping plover AOI? Automatically answered Yes 10. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the red knotAOI? Automatically answered Yes 11. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the peppered chub critical habitat? Automatically answered No 12. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the whooping crane AOI? Automatically answered Yes DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 5 of 7 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC 13. Does the action area have habitat that may be used by whooping cranes during spring and fall migrations (Mar 19-Apr 30, Oct 20—Nov 24)? Note:Whooping crane habitat includes croplands and grasslands interspersed with wetlands such as lakes,ponds and rivers.The portion of water bodies used by whooping cranes tend to be shallow(up to 20 inches in depth). More information on stopover habitat can be found here:htWs://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70202378. No 14. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the sharpnose shiner critical habitat? Automatically answered No 15. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the smalleye shiner critical habitat? Automatically answered No 16. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the black-capped vireo range? Automatically answered No 17. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Texas screwstem range? Automatically answered No 18. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the western chicken turtle range? Automatically answered Yes 19. [Semantic] Does the project intersect the Kisatchie painted crayfish range? Automatically answered No 20. Do you have additional supporting documents you would like to upload to support your project review(e.g., Biological Evaluation, Habitat Assessment, Environmental Report, photos, maps, etc.)? No DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 6 of 7 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Army Corps of Engineers Name: Brandon Ford Ford Address: 2000 Fort Point Road City: Galveston State: TX Zip: 77550 Email christopher.b.ford@usace.army.mil Phone: 4097663079 DKey Version Publish Date:04/18/2024 7 of 7 �t� NT Or r pP .i Fi �7�n•k'C United States Department of the Interior / FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' 'RCM:i � Arlington Ecological Services Field Office � 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 Houston,TX 77058-3051 Phone: (817)277-1100 Fax: (817)277-1129 Email Address: arles(@fws.gov In Reply Refer To: 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC Project code: 2025-0022435 Project Name: Cooper Creek CAP Federal Nexus: yes Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Army Corps of Engineers Subject: Technical assistance for 'Cooper Creek CAP' Dear Brandon Ford Ford: This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on November 20, 2024, for'Cooper Creek CAP' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code 2025-0022435 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please carefully review this letter.Your Endangered Species Act (Act) requirements are not complete. Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species' determination keys in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and based on a standing analysis.All information submitted by the Project proponent into IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Range-wide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter. Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tricolored Bat Based on your IPaC submission and a standing analysis completed by the Service, you determined the proposed Project will have the following effect determinations: Species Listing Status Determination Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis sub flavus) Proposed May affect Endangered Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC The IPaC-assisted determination key for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat does not apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area: ■ Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii Proposed Threatened ■ Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate ■ Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened • Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened ■ Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may cause prohibited take of the species listed above. Conclusion Consultation with the Service is not complete. Further consultation or coordination with the Service is necessary for those species or designated critical habitats with a determination of "May Affect."A"May Affect" determination in this key indicates that the project, as entered, is not consistent with the questions in the key. Not all projects that reach a "May Affect" determination are anticipated to result in adverse impacts to listed species. These projects may result in a "No Effect", "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect", or "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect" determination depending on the details of the project. Please contact our Arlington Ecological Services Field Office to discuss methods to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to those species or designated critical habitats. Federal agencies must consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when an action may affect a listed species. Tricolored bat is proposed for listing as endangered under the ESA, but not yet listed. For actions that may affect a proposed species, agencies cannot consult, but they can confer under the authority of section 7(a) (4) of the ESA. Such conferences can follow the procedures for a consultation and be adopted as such if and when the proposed species is listed. Should the tricolored bat be listed, agencies must review projects that are not yet complete, or projects with ongoing effects within the tricolored bat range that previously received a NE or NLAA determination from the key to confirm that the determination is still accurate. Projects that receive a may affect determination for tricolored bat through the key, should contact the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office if they want to conference on this species. DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 2 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC Action Description You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action. 1. Name Cooper Creek CAP 2. Description The following description was provided for the project 'Cooper Creek CAP': Flood risk reduction The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/033. ,-97. ,14z Ja J LWYWOOdUb i• - < 37 ■ 7 .r DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 3 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC DETERMINATION KEY RESULT Based on the answers provided, the proposed Action is consistent with a determination of "may affect" for a least one species covered by this determination key. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW 1. Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of listed bats or any other listed species? Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project.Intentional take could refer to research,direct species management,surveys,and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering, harassment,collection,or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened,endangered or proposed species? No 2. Is the action area wholly within Zone 2 of the year-round active area for northern long- eared bat and/or tricolored bat? Automatically answered No 3. Does the action area intersect Zone 1 of the year-round active area for northern long-eared bat and/or tricolored bat? Automatically answered No 4. Does any component of the action involve leasing, construction or operation of wind turbines?Answer'yes' if the activities considered are conducted with the intention of gathering survey information to inform the leasing, construction, or operation of wind turbines. Note: For federal actions,answer`yes'if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either(1)part of the federal action or(2)would not occur but for a federal agency action(federal permit,funding,etc.). No 5. Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency in whole or in part? Yes 6. Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in whole or in part? No DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 4 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC 7. Are you an employee of the federal action agency or have you been officially designated in writing by the agency as its designated non-federal representative for the purposes of Endangered Species Act Section 7 informal consultation per 50 CFR § 402.08? Note:This key may be used for federal actions and for non-federal actions to facilitate section 7 consultation and to help determine whether an incidental take permit may be needed,respectively.This question is for information purposes only. Yes 8. Is the lead federal action agency the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? Is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funding or authorizing the proposed action, in whole or in part? No 9. Is the lead federal action agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)? No 10. [Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.5 miles of a known bat hibernaculum? Note:The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed.If you need additional information,please contact your State wildlife agency. Automatically answered No 11. Does the action area contain any winter roosts or caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures, or other karst features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat for hibernating bats? No 12. Will the action cause effects to a bridge? Note: Covered bridges should be considered as bridges in this question. No 13. Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel at any time of year? No 14. Are trees present within 1000 feet of the action area? Note:If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats answer "Yes".If unsure,additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat can be found in Appendix A of the USFWS'Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat Survey Guidelines at:https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey_ guidelines. Yes DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 5 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC 15. Does the action include the intentional exclusion of bats from a building or structure? Note:Exclusion is conducted to deny bats'entry or reentry into a building.To be effective and to avoid harming bats,it should be done according to established standards.If your action includes bat exclusion and you are unsure whether northern long-eared bats or tricolored bats are present,answer"Yes."Answer"No"if there are no signs of bat use in the building/structure.If unsure,contact your local Ecological Services Field Office to help assess whether northern long-eared bats or tricolored bats may be present.Contact a Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator(NWCO)for help in how to exclude bats from a structure safely without causing harm to the bats(to find a NWCO certified in bat standards,search the Internet using the search term"National Wildlife Control Operators Association bats").Also see the White-Nose Syndrome Response Team's guide for bat control in structures. No 16. Does the action involve removal, modification, or maintenance of a human-made structure (barn, house, or other building) known or suspected to contain roosting bats? No 17. Will the action cause construction of one or more new roads open to the public? For federal actions, answer `yes'when the construction or operation of these facilities is either (1) part of the federal action or(2)would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.). No 18. Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain to increase average daily traffic permanently or temporarily on one or more existing roads? Note: For federal actions,answer`yes'when the construction or operation of these facilities is either(1)part of the federal action or(2)would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency(federal permit,funding, etc.). . No 19. Will the action include or cause any construction or other activity that is reasonably certain to increase the number of travel lanes on an existing thoroughfare? For federal actions, answer `yes'when the construction or operation of these facilities is either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for an action taken by a federal agency (federal permit, funding, etc.). No 20. Will the proposed Action involve the creation of a new water-borne contaminant source (e.g., leachate pond, pits containing chemicals that are not NSF/ANSI 60 compliant)? Note: For information regarding NSF/ANSI 60 please visit https://www.nsf.orWknowledge-library/nsf-ansi- standard-60-drinking-water-treatment-chemicals-health-effects No DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 6 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC 21. Will the proposed action involve the creation of a new point source discharge from a facility other than a water treatment plant or storm water system? No 22. Will the action include drilling or blasting? No 23. Will the action involve military training (e.g., smoke operations, obscurant operations, exploding munitions, artillery fire, range use, helicopter or fixed wing aircraft use)? No 24. Will the proposed action involve the use of herbicides or other pesticides other than herbicides (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, or rodenticides)? No 25. Will the action include or cause activities that are reasonably certain to cause chronic or intense nighttime noise (above current levels of ambient noise in the area) in suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat during the active season? Chronic noise is noise that is continuous or occurs repeatedly again and again for a long time. Sources of chronic or intense noise that could cause adverse effects to bats may include, but are not limited to: road traffic; trains; aircraft; industrial activities; gas compressor stations; loud music; crowds; oil and gas extraction; construction; and mining. Note:Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat can be found in Appendix A of the USFWS'Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat Survey Guidelines at:htWs://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. No 26. Does the action include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, the use of permanent or temporary artificial lighting within 1000 feet of suitable northern long-eared bat or tricolored bat roosting habitat? Note:Additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat can be found in Appendix A of the USFWS'Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared bat Survey Guidelines at:https://www.fws.gov/media/range-wide-indiana-bat-and-northern-long-eared-bat-survey- guidelines. No 27. Will the action include tree cutting or other means of knocking down or bringing down trees, tree topping, or tree trimming? Yes 28. Will the proposed action occur exclusively in an already established and currently maintained utility right-of-way? Yes DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 7 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC 29. Will the proposed action result in the cutting of entire trees outside of the currently maintained utility right-of-way? Yes 30. Does the action include emergency cutting or trimming of hazard trees in order to remove an imminent threat to human safety or property? See hazard tree note at the bottom of the key for text that will be added to response letters Note:A"hazard tree"is a tree that is an immediate threat to lives,public health and safety,or improved property. No 31. Does the project intersect with the 0- 9.9% forest density category? Automatically answered Yes 32. Does the project intersect with the 10.0- 19.9% forest density category map? Automatically answered Yes 33. Does the project intersect with the 20.0- 29.9% forest density category map? Automatically answered No 34. Does the project intersect with the 30.0- 100% forest density category map? Automatically answered No 35. Will the action cause trees to be cut, knocked down, or otherwise brought down across an area greater than 0.5 acre in total extent? Yes 36. Does the action area intersect the tricolored bat species list area? Automatically answered Yes 37. [Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.25 miles of a culvert that is known to be occupied by northern long-eared or tricolored bats? Note:The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed.If you need additional information,please contact your State wildlife agency. Automatically answered No 38. Has a presence/probable absence bat survey targeting the tricolored bat and following the Service's Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Survey Guidelines been conducted within the project area? No DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 8 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC 39. Is suitable summer habitat for the tricolored bat present within 1000 feet of project activities? (If unsure, answer ""Yes."") Note: If there are trees within the action area that may provide potential roosts for tricolored bats(e.g.,clusters of leaves in live and dead deciduous trees, Spanish moss(Tillandsia usneoides),clusters of dead pine needles of large live pines)answer""Yes.""For a complete definition of suitable summer habitat for the tricolored bat, please see Appendix A in the Service's Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern long-eared Bat Survey Guidelines. Yes 40. Do you have any documents that you want to include with this submission? No DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 9 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Enter the extent of the action area (in acres) from which trees will be removed - round up to the nearest tenth of an acre. For this question, include the entire area where tree removal will take place, even if some live or dead trees will be left standing. 9.0 DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 10 of 11 Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Army Corps of Engineers Name: Brandon Ford Ford Address: 2000 Fort Point Road City: Galveston State: TX Zip: 77550 Email christopher.b.ford@usace.army.mil Phone: 4097663079 DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 11 of 11 �t� NT Or r pP .i Fi �7�n•k'C United States Department of the Interior / FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' 'RCM '" Arlington Ecological Services Field Office � 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 Houston,TX 77058-3051 Phone: (817)277-1100 Fax: (817)277-1129 Email Address: arles(@fws.gov In Reply Refer To: 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC Project Code: 2025-0022435 Project Name: Cooper Creek CAP Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, which may occur within the boundary of your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies are directed to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Under and 7(a)(2) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to determine whether their actions may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Federal action is an activity or program authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by a Federal agency (50 CFR 402.02). A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For Federal actions other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation (similar to a Biological Assessment)be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. After evaluating the potential effects of a proposed action on federally listed species, one of the following determinations should be made by the Federal agency: 1. No effect-the appropriate determination when a project, as proposed, is anticipated to have no effects to listed species or critical habitat. A"no effect" determination does not require section 7 consultation and no coordination or contact with the Service is necessary. However, the action agency should maintain a complete record of their evaluation, including the steps leading to the determination of affect, the qualified personnel conducting the evaluation, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related information. 2. May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect-the appropriate determination when a proposed action's anticipated effects to listed species or critical habitat are insignificant, discountable, or completely beneficial. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where "take" of a listed species occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects, or expect discountable effects to occur. This determination requires written concurrence from the Service. A biological evaluation or other supporting information justifying this determination should be submitted with a request for written concurrence. 3. May affect, is likely to adversely affect-the appropriate determination if any adverse effect to listed species or critical habitat may occur as a consequence of the proposed action, and 2of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC the effect is not discountable or insignificant. This determination requires formal section 7 consultation. The Service has performed up-front analysis for certain project types and species in your project area. These analyses have been compiled into determination keys, which allows an action agency, or its designated non-federal representative, to initiate a streamlined process for determining a proposed project's potential effects on federally listed species. The determination keys can be accessed through IPaC. The Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed should consultation be necessary. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/section-7-consultations New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/bald-and- golden-eagle-management). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/media/land-based-wind-energy-guidelines) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: https:// www.fws.gov/media/recommended-best-practices-communication-tower-design-siting- construction-operation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released specifications for and made mandatory flashing L-810 lights on new towers 150-350 feet AGL, and the elimination of L-810 steady-burning side lights on towers above 350 feet AGL. While the FAA made these changes to reduce the number of migratory bird collisions (by as much as 70%), extinguishing steady-burning side lights also reduces maintenance costs to tower owners. For additional information concerning migratory birds and eagle conservation plans, please contact the Service's Migratory Bird Office at 505-248-7882. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in 3of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List ■ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries • Bald& Golden Eagles ■ Migratory Birds • Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Arlington Ecological Services Field Office 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 Houston, TX 77058-3051 (817) 277-1100 4of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: 2025-0022435 Project Name: Cooper Creek CAP Project Type: Flooding Project Description: Flood risk reduction Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/033. ,-97. ,14z 65 IK'n:.nr:Ln 2 n Y � R t c K 1 r � v l idtre 2 A1rlvW M Ln' _ 9 t 31111 j 1 Counties: Denton County, Texas 5of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 2 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 6of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC MAMMALS NAME STATUS Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus Proposed No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Endangered Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/sl2ecies/10515 BIRDS NAME STATUS Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations]-Wherever found,except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: • Wind Energy Projects Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039 Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus ru fa Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ■ Wind Energy Projects Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864 Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered Population:Wherever found,except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 REPTILES NAME STATUS Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii Proposed No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Threatened Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4658 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile:https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 7of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S)MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 2. The Migratory Birds Treated of 1918. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)in this area,but warrants attention Jul 31 because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 8of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence (■) Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort (1) Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. ■probability of presence breeding season I survey effort —no data SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Eagl Non-BCCe 11ij ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++ii iiii ++++ + �� iiii gill iill Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: ■ Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory ■ Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf ■ Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action 9of14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats3 should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. BREEDING NAME SEASON American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica Breeds This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere and Alaska. https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10561 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)in this area,but warrants attention Jul 31 because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 25 and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Least Tern Sternula antillarum antillarum Breeds Apr 25 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 5 and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/11919 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Breeds This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere and Alaska. https:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 10 of 14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC BREEDING NAME SEASON Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Breeds Mar 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)only in particular Bird Conservation Regions to Oct 15 (BCRs)in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9477 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Breeds This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere and Alaska. hlWs://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561 Prairie Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides Breeds Feb 1 to This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)only in particular Bird Conservation Regions Jul 31 (BCRs)in the continental USA htWs:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833 Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31 and Alaska. htWs:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9439 Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10 and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueh Breeds This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8964 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence (■) Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort (1) 11 of 14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. ■probability of presence breeding season I survey effort —no data SPECIES JAN FEB MAR +APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Golden- plove r T++++ ++++ ++++ + I ++++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Non-BCCe ++++ 111111+ ++++ $W 111�11111 ++++ +T++ N111 W 1111 Vulnerable A MEN Chimney t BCC Rang wlide ++++ ++++ +111 +111 g+1 +100 ,++' 1'++ +"' ++++ ++++ ++++ (CON) mmmmON mmmm minim 1h Least Tern BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ +++I IN ... .... .... .... (CON) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++I+ ++++ (CON) ++++ ++++ +M ie$i zs 170 i+1l ++ ��ii +++ ++++ ++++ Little Blue Heron + BCC-BCR � Pectoral Sandpiper BCC Rangewide ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +A. ++++ ++++ ++++ (CON) yy +■ y Prairie Loggerhead Shrike ++++ 0TI 1p ' I �� T+IF+ +1*' ++„ ,+++ ++++ +,++ ++++ ++++ BCC-BCR Warblerotary ++++ ++++ ++++Prothon +++I +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed ++++ ++++ ++++ +++i � ++++ ++++ ++++ Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) + Spr Pipit BCCC Rangewide TT T T++++ ++++ ++++ +++1 1+++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++Ran (CON) 12 of 14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC Additional information can be found using the following links: • Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds ■ Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf ■ Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-ea les-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S.Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. RIVERINE ■ R4SBCx FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND ■ PF01A 13 of 14 Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Army Corps of Engineers Name: Brandon Ford Ford Address: 2000 Fort Point Road City: Galveston State: TX Zip: 77550 Email christopher.b.ford@usace.army.mil Phone: 4097663079 14 of 14 Appendix C : Economics Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 1 Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................3 2.0 Structure Inventory..................................................................................................................3 3.0 Economic Evaluation Methodology.........................................................................................5 4.0 Summary of Baseline Estimated Damages ............................................................................6 5.0 National Economic Development Analysis .............................................................................8 2 1 .0 Introduction This appendix presents economic analysis for the Cooper Creek Study. The economics component of the study included identifying structures in the floodplain along with relevant characteristics such as building type, structure replacement value, structure content value, and estimating flood damages under different frequency of flood events. Expected annual damages were used to determine if project alternatives were economically justified using standard National Economic Development (NED) metrics. NED analysis is a fundamental component of planning studies, and the purpose is to determine whether a proposed project is a sound investment for federal taxpayers. The study area is in Denton County, Texas in areas along Cooper Creek. Denton is part of the Dallas Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area, and has population of about one million people. 2.0 Structure Inventory The team's hydrologists and engineers developed a reasonable impact area based on a review of past studies and other data (Figure 1). With the impact area boundaries, PDT economists compiled a structure inventory based on surface water profiles and depth grids developed by the hydrologist using HEC-RAS (both 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional geometries) for existing conditions. Given that the impact area is "built out", meaning future expansion of developable land is not likely, the future without project conditions are assumed to mirror the existing conditions for economic analyses. The marked structures in Figure 1 comprise the structure inventory and were selected using the 0.002 Annual Chance Exceedance (500-year event) inundation area with a 500-foot buffer within the impact area. Based on data from the USACE National Structure Inventory 2022 (NS122), the area prone to flooding is primarily residential with 684 structures total. There are 654 residential structures that are mostly (96 percent) one-story single-family detached homes and, of these, about 90 percent rest on concrete slab foundations with first-floor elevations range approximately 0.5-to-2.0 feet above grade. Most (98 percent) of structures have wooden exterior walls and none have basements. Flood impact analysis discussed in subsequent sections mostly affects residential structures. Based on data from the NS122, structure market values (net of land value) range from about $42,000 to $860,000 with an average and median of$188,000 and $190,000 respectively and a standard deviation of$60,000 (Table 1). A review of 2024 Denton County appraisal records show that these values are more or less accurate.' Per USACE policy and guidance, structure monetary values used in the analysis must be based on depreciated replacement value (DRV) as opposed to market value, which can fluctuate considerably based on several factors such as broader national and local economic trends. To estimate DRV for the structure inventory, the PDT relied on construction cost data published by ' A search map with appraisal values is available at: https://www.dentoncad.com/maps 3 RS Means maintained by USACE cost engineers. Specifically, economists applied construction per square foot to arrive at a baseline replacement value and then applied depreciation factors also published by RS Means to estimate DRV. Since NS122 values are in year 2022, RS Means construction cost indices for the Dallas Fort Worth MSA were applied to estimate DRVs at 2024 price levels. Table 2 summarizes DRV estimates used to calculate NED benefits. Figure 1 Study Impact Area and Structures (Denton County,Texas) IS •Vr . l , a t • � . c .♦ f Table 1 Structure Values Reported in the USACE National Structure Inventory(2022)for the Cooper Creek Impact Area Damage Nan NSI Structure Standard Mnunum 1Vlaximum Category Count Value Deviation Residential 655 $122,916,000 $187,658 $69,665 $42,498 $859,241 Commercial 18 $4,457,000 $247,611 $184,014 $112,833 $990,609 Public 10 $1,896,000 1 $189,600 $23,930 1 $156,821 1 $225,840 Industrial 1 $226,000 $226,000 $0 $226,000 $226,000 4 Damage N1van NSI Structure Standard Minunum NlLximum Category Count Value Deviation Total 684 $129,495,000.0 $189,320 $75,047 $42,498 $990,609 Table 2 Estimated Depreciated Replacement Value for Structures in the Cooper Creek Impact Area De DamageStandard Category Count Replacement Nban Deviation NMnimum Nhximum Value Residential 655 $86,364,000 $131,853 $63,087 $42,498 $786,948 Coninercial 18 $3,215,000 $178,611 $63,178 $89,437 $866,001 Public 10 $1,282,000 $128,200 $56,622 $98,222 $186,420 Industrial 1 $138,000 $138,000 $0 $138,000 $138,000 Total 684 $90,999,000 $133,039 $75,047 $38,614 $866,001 3.0 Economic Evaluation Methodology The Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-FDA) software developed by the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center provides the capability to perform an integrated hydrologic engineering and economic analysis during the formulation and evaluation of flood risk management plans. HEC-FDA is designed to assist USACE study members in using risk assessment procedures for formulating and evaluating flood risk management measures pursuant to pertinent policy and guidance (EM 1110-2-1619, ER 1105-2-101). HEC-FDA is USACE's only tool certified to support inland flood risk assessment recommendations and has supported 49 chief's reports in the last 10 years in which HEC-FDA was used by USACE project delivery teams to identify more than $5 billion in annual benefits that justified nearly $44 billion in flood risk management investment recommendations. USACE makes investment decisions for flood risk management projects using marginal expected annual damages. Flood events have return intervals that are based on the probability that such an event will occur in any single year over the recurrence interval. Total damages (single event damages) ignore the probability (annual exceedance probability) and assume that the flood happens and damages manifest. In contrast, expected annual damages are weighted by the probability. For example, for a 10-year flood event (0.10 probability), total or single event damages are weighted by 0.10. Intervals or marginal changes between events ensure there is no double counting. Standard event frequencies included in an FDA model are the 2,5,10,25,50,100,250 and 500-year recurrence intervals. Key inputs in FDA consist of hydrologic, design engineering, economic and project construction, or implementation cost data. Hydrologists develop hydraulic inputs, flow frequency functions and stage discharge functions for both existing and the future without project conditions along with inundation data including geospatial mapping products. Economists focus on developing 5 structure inventories and parameters for NED analysis such as discount rates and converting cost and benefits to annualized values. Lastly, design engineers conceptualize structural study alternatives, and cost engineers provide construction or implementation cost estimates. Once relevant inputs are collected and entered, FDA estimates changes in hydraulics resulting from structural alternatives, and how changes affect flood impacts to structures in the study area. Reduced damages are NED benefits, and these are compared to the financial costs of different alternative formulations. Structural alternatives directly affect hydraulics in the study, while non-structural alternatives do not, but can reduce damages such as changes to structures. For example, purchasing properties to remove them from a floodplain, or elevating structures are considered non-structural alternatives even thought they involve construction. For the economic analysis, key assumptions for the economic evaluation: 1) costs and benefits are annualized to a common reference point using a 50-year period of analysis and a discount rate of 3.00 percent (approved value for fiscal year 2025), and 2) the future without project condition is the same as existing conditions given that the study is fully developed and zoned accordingly; thus, future expansion in the area is not possible. For FDA, depth damage functions and content value ratios are from Engineering Guidance Memorandum 01-03. 4.0 Summary of Baseline Estimated Damages To illustrate the extent of flooding, Figures 2 and 3 show flooding for the without project condition for the 0.10 AEP (10-year) event and the 0.002 AEP event (500-year), and Table 3 displays single event damages (unweighted by probability) for the suite of flood events included in an FDA analysis. At higher frequency events, depths relative to first floor structure elevations and estimated damages are limited, while at lower frequencies, they are higher and at the extreme (0.002 AEP) structure and content damages total $7.8 million. Total Expected Annual Damage (EAD) across the range of modeled flood events is roughly $907,000. Table 3 Single Event Flood Depths and Damages for Structures with Nbdeled Damages (monetary values in$millions) Annual Exceedance 0.5 AEP 0.2 AEP 0.1 AEP 0.04 AEP 0.02 AEP 0.01 AEP 0.005 AEP 0.002 AEP Probability Depth Relative to First Floor Elevations Ntan 0.80) 0.40) (0.20) 0.06 0.24 0.41 0.52 0.64 Standard Deviation 0.00 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.79 0.86 Maximum 0.16 1.06 1.48 1.98 2.54 3.07 3.57 4.23 NEnimum 1.82 1.93 1.92 1.82 1.89 1.51 1.46 1.95 Single Event Damages ($millions) Structures $0.20 $0.85 $1.50 $2.31 $2.86 $3.46 $4.01 $4.90 Content and vehicles $0.15 $0.56 $0.95 $1.43 $1.73 $2.06 $2.36 $2.88 Total $0.34 $1.42 $2.45 $3.75 $4.59 $5.53 $6.37 $7.78 6 Figure 2 Flood Inundation at the 0.10 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (10-year frequency interval) ,ot 51 A O U A L u Poinsettia Brr6 A > c Hacules Ln p - n e Sun Valley Ut g 4 La Cyrus way 4 �. O w n ej�ok oy C'sa 1 F D A n c ❑ �' e p 'It 0,0 mr� a Harvest Hill or p at Tfe P. c` R ] e Imperial Dr 2 w1 o > N c Deer held pr Cromwell 0� {rJ High Meadow pr w Kln ow a ••••• f .Kings Row oea Dt _ o r Salado St :so K rr rDr Laguna 7Mses SlrallordS • D Ouad,P gs Row u - o Pickwick \Kmgslon Trce $ o o ,ell C r4ve.4 q� [y .r' j 3 d� seen Oaks Stu ie Pyoma pr 4, 8 °$ l\ Ye �I+t sad •• • •s G 011113 P l •\ : •i� j v 0� .1 n Gas ��III • • co �J > n • dsa Dr o bor` �,�` •Isf • a s �„�e • Blue Bot'i� OVS lay �•' ", »31e• • � cod Tit IM1'lls�t ..'+' t♦ _Z • a Chisholm Itl i ar Or �• nSl Cordova \ O Cloves In . Arches TO `' s s� sfoak St y °c+ Codo oc a o v J roaaoticlr eau ; ! oa t ° ; °o Ch. c Ch eDi Ln e c Williamsburg ow O ieU+ y a° v u Liam Dr � W° Mlslywood Ln Mistywood n J / u ••• G a Linwood Or Peach Lauretwood Or ` O St. .n v p Z Greenwood orb a 1^ r 7 Figure 3 Flood Inundation at the 0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (500-year frequency interval) Lx9uouP e - _ _ R �uunr-Dr �D crwae st�' L f oppoue nr O4 on O � E p�`anrnC D' au ne Ln � - - o R E u U - P.Insetlla 81v6 " _ � Mtrculea Ln p 9—Va1'" Lyraa War ti r ecU' • d n'�'L � oo Oi - L) ,�'pr .1' .at roil Dr p S�lv.i n �1 mw I DIwo D, ti � P w � fiin ,nneny Dr `' han [,� r, 6 c e [� Mea new lops Raw. - 5 at aen S e ar Or _ .,• _ alr m Ouylq K,npy Row • yy sac;on rr Ls w N bf� �M�MIMMy' ,4 n n Oaks 9t g o to nyoma Dr s 00 - oon rrt N Kgtaa • �. • I chrah alm rn e Lgnov� v O l;levei Ln AIL'.er '�. Curonann Or Henlape Ln w �{ y . � � f WIIllamabulp Row neb•Ln _ � • d L Llam Or L S M11:tywuoC fs'� 111.tvwc Lfnwoep Or Laurelwooe Dr ai h St firms in u`• T Gr.M+wooB Dr L �I'-.i o s E � u 5 �$$ � o OAF -- •• n �. x a ; n —Mehican St a O • fnrrat 51 5.0 National Economic Development Analysis National Economic Development (NED) analysis is a key part of evaluating projects to address water resources problems with USACE involvement. Generally, this involves estimating economic benefits of a project from a federal or national perspective, and comparing benefits to the financial costs of project construction or implementation. From an economic perspective, projects with the greatest net benefits (annualized benefits less costs) are considered the NED plan, and such projects require a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of greater than 1.0 to be considered a sound investment on the part of the federal government. Structural alternative include: ■ Alt 2A1 ■ Alt 2C1 ■ Alt 2D1 ■ Alt 3A1 ■ Alt 5A1 8 ■ Alt 8A1 ■ Alt 17A1 The main report and engineering appendix describes these in detail. Nonstructural alternatives (NSA) consist of buyouts and structural elevation for properties showing damages for the 50, 25 and 10-year recurrence intervals. Buyouts would involve a complete purchase of properties at market value and demolition costs of removing structures. Structure elevation consists of raising homes off their foundations and placing support columns underneath to protect from flooding. For both buyouts and elevation, it is assumed that all damages estimated for existing and future without project conditions would be eliminated. Affected structures are those identified in each inundation footprint for each recurrence interval. Thus, benefits are the entirety of avoided existing without project impacts. Selection of the properties in the 10, 25 and 50-year flood plains intervals is based on the notion that the alternatives would focus on structures prone to repetitive damages (i.e., damages that occur at higher frequency intervals). For structural elevation alternatives, cost estimates assume that structures would be raised to eliminate damages across all flood frequencies for structures in each alternative footprint with the underlying logic that the bulk of elevation costs involve removing homes from their foundations, and the marginal costs of additional height are small relative to total costs. ■ Elevation (50 YR) ■ Elevation (25YR) ■ Elevation (10 YR) ■ Buyout (50 YR) ■ Buyout (25 YR) ■ Buyout (10 YR) Table 4 displays NED metrics including project costs, reduced flood damages (EAD) of each alternative, net benefits and BCRs. EAD values and BCRs show stochastic ranges estimated by FDA based on uncertainty in hydrologic and economic variables, all of which have an underlying probability distribution. The mid-point or mean value is typically the benchmark used as a decision metric in terms of NED analysis. Results indicate that no alternative plans meet NED thresholds. 9 Table 4 Single Event Flood Depths and Damages for Structures with 1Vbdeled Damages Implementation Costs Expected Annual Damages Reduced(Benefits) Benefit to Cost Ratios Alternative Net Benefits (Aan) First Costs Annual Ntan Pt Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 1VEan 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Costs Alt2A1 $35043,000 $134,474 $12,874 $6,670 $11,815 $20,385 $1215600 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.15 Alt2C1 $8,662,000 $390,113 $301,202 $49,486 $117,290 $340,197 $88,911 0.77 0.13 0.30 0.87 Ak2D1 $10,112,000 $455,417 $335,779 $49,898 $128,643 $370,760 $119,638 0.74 0.11 0.28 0.81 Alt3A1 $9,194,000 $416,833 $335,778 $61,178 $139,903 $380,235 $81,055 0.81 0.15 0.34 0.91 Ak 5Al $15,226,431 $1,587,349 $236,631 $44,910 $106,262 $270,594 $1,350,718 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.17 Ak8A1 $4,225,000 $186,708 $85,595 $21,443 $59,219 $114,615 $101,113 0.46 0.11 0.32 0.61 Ak 17A1 $10,608,000 $486,580 $337,429 $60,807 $141,618 $383,932 $149,151 0.69 0.12 0.29 0.79 Elevation 50 YR $34,606,000 $1,540,667 $752,000 $307,790 $523,334 $943,735 $788,667 0.49 0.20 0.34 0.61 Elevation 25YR $26,460,000 $1,176,031 $679,055 $242,017 $503,097 $859,646 $496,976 0.58 0.21 0.43 0.73 Elevation 10 YR $16,914,000 $751,753 $542,000 $286,271 $454,538 $697,080 $209,753 0.72 0.38 0.60 0.93 Buyout 50 YR $55,781,254 $2,200,325 $752,000 $307,790 $523,334 $943,735 $15448,325 0.34 0.14 0.24 0.43 Buyout 25 YR $39,307,987 $1,550,527 1 $679,055 1 $242,017 1 $503,097 1 $859,646 $8715472 0.44 1 0.16 1 0.32 1 0.55 Buyout 10 YR $22,880,759 $902,545 $542,000 $286,271 1 $454,538 $697,080 $3605545 0.60 0.32 0.50 0.77 10 Appendix D : Hydraulics and Hydrology Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 1.0 INTRODUCTION Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were conducted as part of the feasibility study to evaluate alternatives developed by the PDT to address flood related damages along Cooper Creek. A without-project condition model for the Cooper Creek was created to simulate the hydrologic and hydraulic response of the watershed. The without-project condition model was then modified with different measures including floodwater detention, channel improvement and bridge/culvert improvements to improve the management of flood risk within the Cooper Creek watershed. 1.1 Study Area The study area is the Cooper Creek watershed located within the City of Denton, Texas. Denton is the county seat of Denton County and is in north central Texas approximately 36 miles north of Fort Worth and 38 miles northwest of Dallas. Direct freeway access between Denton and Fort Worth/Dallas is provided via IH-35W and IH-35E. According to US Census Bureau, Denton had a 2023 population of 158,349 and covers 87.95 square miles. The City of Denton lies within the Trinity River basin. Cooper Creek is located in the northern part of the City of Denton, Texas. The creek flows in a southeasterly direction though the city and terminates at Lewisville Lake. The watershed of Cooper Creek is about 6.1 miles long and conveys a drainage area of approximately 9.35 square miles. Cooper Creek is generally a trapezoidal, unlined earthen channel. The creek is generally small but well defined, mostly unimproved channel with several tributaries. The main channel has an average depth of 6 feet,top width of 50 feet and a slope of 25 feet per mile. The creek is normally dry with flow occurring during periods of heavy rainfall. There are several culvert crossings that have limited capacity and cause backwater conditions within the stream channel. The 100-year floodplain generally extends beyond the stream banks and into the residential yards. Existing detention ponds were constructed within Cooper Creek's watershed to reduce flood damages along the creek.There is some channel erosion along Cooper Creek due to high velocities in the channel. At present, most of the development within Cooper Creek watershed is residential (mostly single-family), with a few schools and parks scattered within the watershed. While the watershed is nearly fully developed, there are some areas in the upstream reaches of Cooper Creek and its tributaries that are presently undeveloped and future development of these areas may worsen the backwater problems, causing additional flooding along Cooper Creek. Commercial development is widely scattered throughout the lower end of the watershed and has only minimal flood damage potential. Much of the vegetative cover is in its natural state except where residential development has encroached upon the creek in the upper end of the watershed. A map of the Cooper Creek watershed is included in Figure 1. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 4 -- r 1. Lend N ge i• � . WE '� FEMA 100-yr(1Vv10E)Flaodplain f �ailk Cooper Creek%%-ashed +r. r 7 - Svrnms(Netirne Hydmgrephy Mksd) 0.25 O,S 1 1. 2MIle Figure 1 Cooper Creek Watershed Based on previous USACE studies and input from the Non-Federal Sponsor(NFS),the primary areas of flooding concern were along Cooper Creek above Mingo Rd (Figure 2). During development of existing conditions modeling, a significant number of structures, between 0.25— 1.0 mile upstream of the NFS identified area (Between Stuart Rd. and Windsor Dr.), were experiencing economic damages in the 10- year to 25-year floodplains as well (Figure 3). Cooper Creek,Denton Texas ze a �9►,=3 w r: �1 Op in 41111 f ) � R•EOM .J' t� lQ �/•� �j�ili � Y�.ryapooa N r. wcondary.ow. b c..aw auar.«owl 110i iP1�7ipo tit a�� 1 � s . . s♦ A Figure 2 NFS Proposed Study Areas Jt p a r Figure 3 Structures located within 25-year Floodplain between Sherman Drive and Stream CC-2 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 1.2 Prior Studies Flood hazard information has been identified for the Cooper Creek watershed back to 1977. In 1977, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis work was completed bythe U.S.Geological Survey(USGS)forthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In December 1979, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prepared a reconnaissance report on the flooding problems in the City of Denton (FEMA, 2001). In 1982, the USACE completed a Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 205 study that identified several plans with benefit-to-cost ratios above 1.0. The selected plan included a total of about 4,000 feet of channel improvement passing between a 10-year to 25-year flood event. A map of the selected plan is included in Figure 4 (USACE, 1982). .-�' 1 tnT10N;p ♦f 9 f�'f_- •-—. - < J w rE AR Ass LAWD CAL Sherman Or. _• .e• East Windsor Dr. " jy ��_e !sTaRT 3TaTgN xle.x+ 0rEM� _y IYD 17"TiOM ileHO 1 OROM 9TwKR W FM • i iy N 1 t ( i Old North Rd. � \wwcxr st/EeT ,- .�-- ,�' eMiOac ro,ft M(rnw�to �.L�_.. � ... - � .`•w - wMnn1cTMtc,wt \� , .'t et,Mt�rze Fart .one ai*Mrc+ ((( , 9TE P AJ/ ,'. - l �. 1. _!. %� � = 1• .- :r, I1 COOPER CREEK Figure 4 Plan view of Selected Plan from 1982 USACE Cooper Creek CAP Section 205 Study In March 1985,The FEMA Flood Insurance Study(FIS) information was updated by the USACE Fort Worth District (FEMA, 2001). In 2009, a flood mitigation study was performed for the City of Denton by Jacobs Engineering Group. The 2009 study identified potential detention and bridge modification alternatives but did not include any economic benefit information (Jacobs, 2009). In 2023, a stormwater master plan needs assessment was performed for the City of Denton by Freese and Nichols, Inc. The 2023 study was a high-level study that identified potential areas along Cooper Creek for further analysis. While potential areas were identified, actual alternative analysis was not performed as part of this study(Freese, 2023). Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS A detailed hydrologic analysis of the Cooper Creek watershed was performed to develop discharge- frequency relationships for the Cooper Creek watershed for existing without-project conditions. Computed peak discharges were developed for the 50, 20, 10,4, 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.2%annual chance storms or storms that have recurrence intervals of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 years, respectively. The 100-yr flood is defined as the flood which has a 1%chance of occurring in any given year.The hydrologic analysis was performed using Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) version 4.12 and Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) version 6.5. HEC-HMS was used to compute flow hydrographs for individual subbasins while HEC-RAS was used to combine and route the subbasin hydrographs. 2.1 Streamflow Gauging There are no U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow recording gauges within the Cooper Creek watershed. Nearby gages (Hickory Creek at Denton, Texas; Clear Creek near Sanger, Texas; and Ray Roberts Lake near Pilot Point,Texas) have drainage areas(129+square miles)and land use types(primarily rural) significantly different than the Cooper Creek watershed and were not used in this analysis. 2.2 Drainage Basin Delineation The Cooper Creek watershed includes approximately 9.35 square miles was sub-divided into 28 sub- basins. The watershed was subdivided using 1m StratMap LiDAR (North & Central Texas) terrain data flown in 2020. The Lidar was downloaded from the Texas Geographic Information Office (formerly TNRIS) Cooper Creek,Denton Texas in June 2024. Watershed characteristics such as drainage area, watercourse length, location of centroid, basin slope, land use, and soil type were developed for each sub-basin (Figure 5). r rr .. P Legend Cooper Creek Subbasin Layout Cooper creek "+� Streamlines 1 2 Subbasins Miles Figure 5 Cooper Creek Subbasin Layout Based on previous USACE studies and input from the NFS, the primary areas of flooding concern were along Cooper Creek above Mingo Rd. During development of existing conditions modeling, a significant number of structures, between 0.25—1.0 mile upstream of the NFS identified area (Between Stuart Rd. and Windsor Dr.),were experiencing economic damages in the 10-year to 25-year floodplains as well. 2.3 Precipitation Data Precipitation for each frequency storm was developed using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Atlas 14 report. NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 11 covers the state of Texas and was published in 2018. The values(Table 1)were extracted from Cooper Creek at Sherman Drive but the values do not vary across the small study area. Rainfall volumes were not reduced due to study area's Cooper Creek,Denton Texas small drainage area. HEC-HMS utilized the precipitation frequency estimates and generated balanced hyetograph storms with the most intense portion of the event falling halfway through the storm. Table 1 Precipitation Frequency Estimates Return Period (years) 2yr 5yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr 200yr 500yr 5-min 0.45 0.58 0.68 0.81 0.90 0.99 1.08 1.20 10-min 0.73 0.94 1.09 1.30 1.45 1.59 1.74 1.92 15-min 0.90 1.16 1.36 1.60 1.79 1.97 2.15 2.38 30-min 1.26 1.61 1.88 2.22 2.46 2.71 2.96 3.29 60-min 1.63 2.10 2.45 2.91 3.24 3.57 3.92 4.38 2-hr 2.00 2.62 3.08 3.69 4.16 4.63 5.13 5.82 3-hr 2.23 2.93 3.47 4.20 4.75 5.32 5.94 6.79 6-hr 2.64 3.51 4.18 5.10 5.80 6.55 7.36 8.48 12-hr 3.11 4.15 4.96 6.05 6.89 7.79 8.76 10.10 24-hr 3.64 4.86 5.80 7.08 8.06 9.10 10.20 11.90 2.3 Model Development Using the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center- Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) version 4.12 software, a watershed runoff model was developed for without-project conditions. A 1-minute computation interval was used in the model to provide detail (shaping) of the unit hydrograph applied at the smaller subbasins in the analysis. 2.4 Land Use Data Future land use data was acquired from the City of Denton that represented the City's best estimate on how the watershed will develop over the next 50 years or more. The existing land use was created using the future land use data and comparing with aerial imagery. Where the future land use did not match the existing condition imagery,the future land use data was modified to create an existing conditions dataset. Land use and percent urban and percent impervious relationships were developed by the USACE Fort Worth District and have been in use on since the 1980s. These relationships are documented in the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) integrated Stormwater Management (iSWM)Technical Manual (Figure 6). Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Land Use Description Percent Percent Imperviousness Urbanization Low Density Single family: '/. —2 units per acre; 25 30 Residential average 1 unit per acre. Medium Densitv Single family: 2 —3'/z units per acre: 41 80 Residential average 3 units per acre. High Density Single family: greater than 31/ units 47 90 Residential per acre: average 4 units per acre. Multifamily Row houses, apartments, Residential townhouses. etc. 70 95 Mobile Home Parks Single family 5-8 units per acre. 20 40 Central Business Intensive, high-density commercial 95 95 District Strip Commercial Low-density commercial; average 3 90 90 units per acre. Shopping Centers Grocery stores. drug stores, malls, etc. 95 95 Institutional Schools, churches, hospitals, etc. 40 50 Industrial centers and parks: light and Industrial heavy industry. JO 95 Transportation Major highways, railroads. 35 80 communication Microwave towers, etc. 35 50 Transformer stations, transmission line Public Utilities right-of-way, sewage treatment 60 70 facilities. water towers, and water treatment facilities. Strip Settlement Densities less than Y —2 units per 10 21-1 acre; average 1 unit per 3— 5 acres. Parks and Parks, cemeteries, etc. Developed Open 6 1 15 Space Developing Land currently being developed 15 20 Cropland 3 5 Grassland Pasture, short grasses. 0 0 Woodlands. Forest 0 0 Water Bodies Lakes, large ponds. 100 100 Barren Land Bare exposed rock, strip mines, gravel 0 0 its. Sources- DetemiinAon of Percent Urbanizationilmperviousness in Watersheds, May 1, 1986, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers SCS,TR-55,Second Edition, June 1986 Figure 6 Percent Urbanization and Imperviousness Summary with Associated Land Use Categories Land use values were correlated with percent urban and percent impervious values and the final Cooper Creek percent urban and impervious values are identified in Table 2 and Table 3. The percent urban values used to develop transform parameters within the HEC-HMS model and the percent impervious values were applied to the loss method within the HEC-HMS model. A spatial representation of the changes from the existing to future percent urban values is included in Figure 7. The percent impervious maps show similar change from Existing to Future conditions. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Table 2 Final Percent Urban Values Subbasin Areas . mi Existing Future Increase S 010 0.35 60 78 18 S 020 0.35 75 78 3 S 030 0.10 3 90 87 S 040 0.06 5 91 86 S 050 0.05 20 96 76 S 060 0.24 45 96 51 S 070 0.12 91 91 0 S 080 0.02 34 34 0 S 090 0.16 62 71 9 S 100 0.41 86 86 0 S 110 0.17 76 76 0 S 120 0.17 87 87 0 S 130 0.58 89 89 0 S 140 0.61 72 85 13 S 150 0.17 92 92 0 S 160 0.29 84 86 2 S 170 0.12 92 92 0 S 180 0.31 5 91 86 S 190 0.25 26 91 65 S 200 0.33 83 94 11 S 210 0.08 83 93 10 S 220 0.14 96 96 0 S 230 0.30 51 94 43 S 240 0.44 37 91 54 S 250 0.98 85 90 5 S 260 0.28 76 84 8 S 270 0.70 50 88 38 S 280 1.59 26 81 55 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Table 3 Final Percent Impervious Values Subbasin Areas . mi Existing Future Increase S 010 0.35 44 58 14 S 020 0.35 54 55 1 S 030 0.10 3 49 46 S_040 0.06 5 50 45 S 050 0.05 19 75 56 S 060 0.24 39 86 47 S 070 0.12 57 57 0 S 080 0.02 19 19 0 S 090 0.16 45 52 7 S 100 0.41 57 57 0 S 110 0.17 47 47 0 S 120 0.17 54 54 0 S 130 0.58 55 55 0 S 140 0.61 57 69 12 S 150 0.17 58 58 0 S 160 0.29 52 54 2 S 170 0.12 55 55 0 S_180 0.31 5 52 47 S_190 0.25 18 55 37 S 200 0.33 57 68 11 S 210 0.08 56 65 9 S 220 0.14 92 92 0 S_230 0.30 34 74 40 S 240 0.44 33 70 37 S 250 0.98 60 64 4 S 260 0.28 71 75 4 S 270 0.70 43 74 31 S 280 1.59 19 48 29 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Existing legend Percent Urban 0-10 so 90-100 - _ _ � '" � •try Future Legend Percent Urban _ t 0-10 50 �E! - 90-100 ..a+ w� f •.r, IL rW M•�Lnr _ Figure 7 Urbanization Changes from Existing to Future Conditions Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2.5 Loss Rates The initial abstractions and infiltration rates presented below were developed by the USACE Fort Worth District from flood hydrograph reproductions studies in which losses were determined for different soil types (Table 4). The loss rates used to compute the flood frequency estimates for this study varied with percent sand values ranging from 2-100%. Table 4 Standard Fort Worth District Loss Rates Annual Average Clayey Soils Sandy Soils Exceedance Recurrence Initial Infiltration Initial Infiltration Probability Interval Abstraction Rate Abstraction Rate (percent) (years) (inches) (inches/hour) (inches) (inches/hour) 50 2 1.50 0.20 2.10 0.26 20 5 1.30 0.16 1.80 0.21 10 10 1.12 0.14 1.50 0.18 4 25 0.95 0.12 1.30 0.15 2 50 0.84 0.10 1.10 0.13 1 100 0.75 0.07 0.90 0.10 0.2 500 0.50 0.05 0.60 0.08 Runoff volumes(excess rainfall amounts)were computed by deducting applicable losses from incremental rainfall amounts. "Block" (initial abstraction) and "uniform" (infiltration rate) losses were applied to all pervious soil surfaces within each subbasin. These losses are based on an analysis originally done in 1957. In this analysis,the initial abstractions and infiltration rates were determined for 10 storm reproductions on the East Fork of the Trinity River near Rockwall,Texas. Losses from these storm reproductions ranged from maximums of 1.30-inch initial abstraction and 0.16-inch per hour infiltration, to minimums of 0.50- inch initial abstraction and 0.05-inch per hour infiltration. Based on these storm reproductions, the 2- year frequency storm was assigned an initial abstraction and infiltration rate of 1.50 inches and 0.20 inch per hour, respectively. The 1000-year frequency storm was assigned an initial abstraction and infiltration rate of 0.50 inches and 0.05 inch per hour, respectively. Losses for the 5-year through 100-year frequency storms were then interpolated. Later studies adopted the "1-year" losses to be the same as those for the 2-year event and the losses for the 500-year and SPF events to be the same as those for the 1000-year event. An additional 30 storm reproductions were used in the development of the Blackland Prairie Clay and Cross Timber Sandy Loam Urbanization in 1970(Nelson) and 1977 (Rodman). In the analysis of these storm reproductions, it was determined that the losses calculated in 1957 more closely matched those for the watersheds that were predominantly clayey in nature; therefore, they became the "clay" losses. A companion set of "sand" losses were then developed by increasing the "clay" losses, using losses determined from storm reproductions in the sandy watersheds as a guide. Subsequent studies, including streamflow frequency analyses have been used to verify the reasonableness of these losses. These losses were applied during the original Tarrant County and Dallas County FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) based on the similarity of soils and runoff characteristics. They have also been applied successfully in Cooper Creek,Denton Texas studies throughout the state, since they relate to soil type, rather than to a specific geographic region. The final subbasin losses are identified in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 Final Initial and Constant Losses for the 2-year through 25-year Frequency Storms Return Interval 2-yr 2-yr 5-yr 5-yr 10-yr 10-yr 25-yr 25-yr Subbasin Percent Initial Constant Initial Constant Initial Constant Initial Constant Name Sand (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) S 010 47 1.78 0.23 1.53 0.18 1.30 0.16 1.11 0.13 S 020 39 1.74 0.22 1.50 0.18 1.27 0.16 1.09 0.13 S 030 20 1.62 0.21 1.40 0.17 1.19 0.15 1.02 0.13 S 040 53 1.82 0.23 1.57 0.19 1.32 0.16 1.14 0.14 S_050 58 1.85 0.23 1.59 0.19 1.34 0.16 1.15 0.14 S 060 35 1.71 0.22 1.48 0.18 1.25 0.15 1.07 0.13 S 070 11 1.57 0.21 1.36 0.17 1.16 0.14 0.99 0.12 S 080 2 1.51 0.20 1.31 0.16 1.13 0.14 0.96 0.12 S 090 71 1.92 0.24 1.65 0.20 1.39 0.17 1.20 0.14 S_100 51 1.81 0.23 1.56 0.19 1.31 0.16 1.13 0.14 S 110 17 1.60 0.21 1.38 0.17 1.18 0.15 1.01 0.13 S_120 11 1.56 0.21 1.35 0.17 1.16 0.14 0.99 0.12 S 130 64 1.89 0.24 1.62 0.19 1.36 0.17 1.18 0.14 S 140 9 1.55 0.21 1.34 0.16 1.15 0.14 0.98 0.12 S 150 16 1.60 0.21 1.38 0.17 1.18 0.15 1.01 0.12 S 160 43 1.76 0.23 1.51 0.18 1.28 0.16 1.10 0.13 S_170 15 1.59 0.21 1.38 0.17 1.18 0.15 1.00 0.12 S 180 39 1.73 0.22 1.50 0.18 1.27 0.16 1.09 0.13 S 190 100 1 2.10 0.26 1.80 0.21 1.50 0.18 1.30 0.15 S 200 24 1.64 0.21 1.42 0.17 1.21 0.15 1.03 0.13 S 210 33 1.70 0.22 1.46 0.18 1.24 0.15 1.06 0.13 S_220 84 2.00 0.25 1.72 0.20 1.44 0.17 1.24 0.15 S 230 28 1.67 0.22 1.44 0.17 1.23 0.15 1.05 0.13 S_240 59 1.85 0.24 1.59 0.19 1.34 0.16 1.16 0.14 S 250 81 1.98 0.25 1.70 0.20 1.43 0.17 1.23 0.14 S 260 25 1.65 0.21 1.42 0.17 1.21 0.15 1.04 0.13 S 270 68 1.91 0.24 1.64 0.19 1.38 0.17 1.19 0.14 S 280 79 1.97 0.25 1.69 0.20 1.42 0.17 1.23 0.14 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Table 6 Final Initial and Constant Losses for the 50-year through 500-year Frequency Storms Return Interval 50-yr 50-yr 100-yr 100-yr 200-yr 200-yr 500-yr 500-yr Subbasin Percent Initial Constant Initial Constant Initial Constant Initial Constant Name Sand (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) (in) (in/hr) S 010 47 0.96 0.11 0.82 0.08 0.66 0.07 0.55 0.06 S_020 39 0.94 0.11 0.81 0.08 0.66 0.07 0.54 0.06 S 030 20 0.89 0.11 0.78 0.08 0.63 0.06 0.52 0.06 S 040 53 0.98 0.12 0.83 0.09 0.67 0.07 0.55 0.07 S 050 58 0.99 0.12 0.84 0.09 0.68 0.08 0.56 0.07 S 060 1 35 0.93 0.11 0.80 0.08 0.65 0.07 0.54 0.06 S_070 11 0.87 0.10 0.77 0.07 0.62 0.06 0.51 0.05 S 080 2 0.85 0.10 0.75 0.07 0.61 0.06 0.50 0.05 S_090 71 1.02 0.12 0.86 0.09 0.69 0.08 0.57 0.07 S 100 51 0.97 0.12 0.83 0.09 0.67 0.07 0.55 0.07 S 110 17 0.88 0.11 0.78 0.08 0.63 0.06 0.52 0.06 S 120 11 0.87 0.10 0.77 0.07 0.62 0.06 0.51 0.05 S 130 64 1.01 0.12 0.85 0.09 0.69 0.08 0.56 0.07 S_140 9 0.86 0.10 0.76 0.07 0.62 0.06 0.51 0.05 S 150 16 0.88 0.10 0.77 0.07 0.63 0.06 0.52 0.05 S 160 43 0.95 0.11 0.81 0.08 0.66 0.07 0.54 0.06 S 170 15 0.88 0.10 0.77 0.07 0.63 0.06 0.52 0.05 S 180 39 0.94 0.11 0.81 0.08 0.66 0.07 0.54 0.06 S_190 100 1.10 0.13 0.90 0.10 0.73 0.09 0.60 0.08 S 200 24 0.90 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.64 0.07 0.52 0.06 S_210 33 0.93 0.11 0.80 0.08 0.65 0.07 0.53 0.06 S 220 84 1.06 0.13 0.88 0.10 0.71 0.08 0.58 0.08 S 230 28 0.91 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.64 0.07 0.53 0.06 S 240 59 0.99 0.12 0.84 0.09 0.68 0.08 0.56 0.07 S 250 81 1.05 0.12 0.87 0.09 0.71 0.08 0.58 0.07 S_260 25 0.90 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.64 0.07 0.52 0.06 S 270 68 1.02 0.12 0.85 0.09 0.69 0.08 0.57 0.07 S 280 1 79 1.04 1 0.12 1 0.87 0.09 1 0.70 0.08 0.58 0.07 2.6 Point Precipitation Volume Reduction NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation point values were not reduced for this study due to the relatively small drainage area (2-3 square miles) of the primary damage area between Sherman Drive and East Windsor Drive. The precipitation volume would be reduced less than 1% if area reduction was added. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2.7 Unit Hydrograph Parameters Synthetic unit hydrograph parameters were developed for each subbasin based on specific physical measurements, as listed in Table 7. Flowpath/stream forcing was incorporated where aerial imagery, National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) or City storm drain data supported a different flowpath than the flowpath resulting from the raw LiDAR. Unit hydrograph lag times (Tp's) were derived for each subbasin using methodology described in the following reports: "Synthetic Hydrograph Relationships,Trinity River Tributaries, Fort Worth-Dallas Urban Area",T.L. Nelson, dated 1970. "Effects of Urbanization on Various Frequency Peak Discharges", Paul K. Rodman, dated October 1977. Each of these reports discuss the development of the previously mentioned Blackland Prairie Clay and Cross Timber Sandy Loam urbanization curves for the general Dallas-Fort Worth vicinity of Texas. These curves relate Tp to certain measurable subbasin parameters for a specific percent urbanization and soil type (percent sand). Each set of curves was based on flood hydrograph reproductions of predominantly clayey or sandy watersheds in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. These curves have been successfully applied to a number of flood insurance and planning studies in Texas with satisfactory results. The urbanization curves relate Tp to the quantity: Tp= 10^(0.3833log (L*Lca/(Sst^ .5))+(Sand*(log1.81-log.92)+log.92)-(BW*Urban./100)) where: Tp = the lag time in hours from the midpoint of the unit rainfall duration to the peak of the unit hydrograph L = the stream mileage from the discharge point to the upstream limits of the drainage subbasin Lca = the stream mileage from the discharge point to the geographical centroid of the drainage subbasin Sst= the weighted stream slope over the stream length, from 10 percent of L to 85 percent of L, above the discharge point, in feet per mile. Sand = percentage sand (0-Clay, 100-Sand), as determined from permeability rates. BW= log(tp) bandwidth between 0%and 100% urbanization Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Based on the percentages of clay and sand,the Tp value was computed for each subbasin by interpolating between the Blackland Prairie Clay and Cross Timber Sandy Loam urbanization curves. A generalized Snyder's unit hydrograph peaking coefficient of 0.72 was obtained from data developed during the generation of the urbanization curves, was applied in this study area. The unit hydrograph data for each subbasin are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Watershed Characteristics and Existing and Future Lag Times Length Weighted Existing Future to Stream Lag Lag Area Length Centroid Slope Time Time Subbasin (sq. mi.) (mi) (mi.) (ft/mi) (hrs) (hrs) S 010 0.35 1.10 0.25 42.56 0.26 0.23 S 020 0.35 0.99 0.29 53.96 0.22 0.21 S_030 0.10 0.80 0.40 53.22 0.31 0.18 S 040 0.06 0.46 0.15 53.96 0.21 0.12 S 050 0.05 0.42 0.19 71.17 0.20 0.13 S 060 0.24 1.11 0.41 47.41 0.31 0.23 S 070 0.12 0.74 0.29 29.73 0.16 0.16 S_080 0.02 0.37 0.17 52.11 0.12 0.12 S 090 0.16 0.89 0.38 51.64 0.32 0.30 S_100 0.41 1.29 0.45 59.03 0.29 0.29 S 110 0.17 1.18 0.45 47.78 0.24 0.24 S 120 0.17 0.96 0.52 40.81 0.22 0.22 S 130 0.58 1.22 0.28 66.42 0.24 0.24 S 140 0.61 1.94 0.69 23.71 0.38 0.35 S_150 0.17 0.69 0.17 45.46 0.12 0.12 S 160 0.29 1.17 0.38 56.97 0.25 0.24 S 170 0.12 0.86 0.43 41.40 0.19 0.19 S 180 0.31 0.98 0.37 67.64 0.35 0.21 S 190 0.25 0.84 0.22 66.05 0.36 0.24 S_200 0.33 1.65 0.58 41.98 0.31 0.29 S 210 0.08 0.93 0.29 53.64 0.20 0.18 S_220 0.14 0.95 0.46 48.31 0.31 0.31 S 230 0.30 1.19 0.15 63.31 0.19 0.15 S 240 0.44 1.55 0.92 30.94 0.65 0.47 S 250 0.98 2.34 1.18 37.33 0.70 0.68 S 260 0.28 1.92 1.02 23.02 0.48 0.46 S 270 0.70 1.55 0.54 26.51 0.54 0.43 S 280 1.59 3.53 1.51 18.06 1.46 1.04 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2.8 Hydrograph Routing Once precipitation, losses, and transform parameters were developed for the HEC-HMS model, multiple flood hydrographs were generated for each subbasin. Flood hydrographs were routed and combined using 2 Dimensional (2D) HEC-RAS simulations. 2.9 Discharge-Frequency Relationships As mentioned previously,the precipitation runoff process for the watershed was modeled using the HEC- HMS model and 2D HEC-RAS model. Flow hydrographs for each subbasin were computed within HEC-HMS and then applied in HEC-RAS as internal boundary conditions. These hydrographs were combined and then routed downstream. Peak discharges (Existing (2024) Conditions) for various locations through the study area are identified in Table 8. For this study the existing condition discharges were assumed to be the same as the future without-project discharges since the majority of the upper half of the watershed is already developed. A sensitivity test was performed for the 100-yr event and resulted in a 0.1 feet elevation increase near Sherman Drive between the existing conditions and future without-project conditions. The City of Denton identified that the primary areas of flooding concern were upstream of Mingo Rd and as a result less detail was given to the analysis below Mingo Rd. For example, there were no hydraulic structures added to HEC-RAS for improved hydrograph routing and flood elevations. As a result, peak discharge reporting is only included above Mingo Rd. Peak discharges are also compared with previous studies in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In general, the peak discharges from the current study are higher than the currently effective FEMA FIS discharges but lower than the USACE peak discharges developed during previous studies. The differences can be attributed to changes in urbanization/imperviousness, reduction in precipitation depths, regional detention, and differences in hydrologic and hydraulic methods and technology. Table 8 Summary of Existing Condition Peak Discharges Annual Chance (%) 50 20 10 4 2 1 0.5 0.2 Return Period (year) Area 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 Location (sq. mi.) Below Regional Pond 1 0.35 160 190 210 Above CC Trib 15 0.72 590 940 1,100 1,280 1,420 1,550 1,680 1,870 Below CC Trib 15 1.28 960 1,560 1,920 2,280 2,540 2,750 2,960 3,210 At Sherman Dr. 2.19 1,810 2,750 3,300 3,890 4,410 4,900 5,350 5,900 Below Stream CC 2 3.96 3,010 4,430 5,150 5,930 6,580 7,220 7,890 8,870 At Mingo Rd. 5.80 3,390 5,340 6,450 7,520 8,300 9,080 9,890 11,000 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Frequency Curves - Cooper Creek at Sherman Dr Return Period(yrs) 10,000 2 F' 10 5 1 0 loo250 50i y-2024 USAGE CAP Study —FIS(2020 Effective) u Previous Study(1985 USACE Study for FEMA) u Previous Study(1982 USACE CAP 205 Study) I N U y E _ U U N U -ll_II_I -�j 1 20 10 4 2 1 0 4 0 Annual Exceedance Probability(%) Figure 8 Peak Discharge Frequency Curve for Cooper Creek at Sherman Drive Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Frequency Curves - Cooper Creek at Stream CC-2 Return Period(yrs) 10,000 5 10550 100 250 500 c i `v m e - - t N 2D24 USACE CAP Shay G —RS(2020 Eifeafve) 0 Previous Study(I M5 USACE 3"for FEMA) o Preveous Snag(IGC2 USACE CAP 205 Sauy) 1,000 so =C 10 4 ? 0 d Annual Exceedance Probability(%) Figure 9 Peak Discharge Frequency Curve for Cooper Creek below Stream CC-2 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 3.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS A detailed hydraulic analysis of the Cooper Creek watershed was performed to develop inundation areas and flood depths for the Cooper Creek watershed for without-project conditions. Inundation areas and flood depths were developed for the 50, 20, 10, 4, 2, 1, 0.5 and 0.2% annual chance storms or storms that have recurrence intervals of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 years, respectively. For this study the existing condition discharges were assumed to be the same as the future without-project discharges since the majority of the upper half of the watershed is already developed. A sensitivity test was performed for the 100-yr event and resulted in a 0.1 feet elevation increase near Sherman Drive between the existing conditions and future without-project conditions. The 100-yr flood is defined as the flood which has a 1% chance of occurring in any year. The hydraulic analysis was performed using HEC-HMS version 4.12 and HEC-RAS version 6.5. HEC-HMS was used to compute flow hydrographs for individual subbasins while HEC-RAS was used to combine and route the subbasin hydrographs. The HEC-RAS modeling was performed using 2D unsteady flow analysis. 3.1 Model Geometry Development The study area was analyzed using HEC-RAS(version 6.5) 2D due to complex flowpaths(Figure 10), hydrograph routing that is more physically based than simplified hydrologic routing methods, and for the benefit of efficiently developing alternatives without the need to add cross sections.The elevation data was developed using 1m StratMap LiDAR (North &Central Texas) terrain data. The terrain data was reprojected into the NAD 1983 State Plane Texas North Central FIPS 4202(feet)coordinate system. All elevations were measured from the NAVD 88(feet). Cooper Creek,Denton Texas fto 16 A • 11 Dr. Jf /1011 IL lb , Figure 10 Complex Flow Paths Generally, a 100-foot grid cell size was used to create the HEC-RAS 2D mesh. A smaller grid cell size of 50- feet was tested and resulted in a significant (5 minute to 30 minute) increase in model simulation time and small difference (1-2 inches) in water surface elevation. Breaklines were added to represent major stream centerlines and were then burned or forced into the mesh. Breaklines were also utilized to represent high points on the terrain such as embankments that either restrict flow or prevent flow. The extents of the 2D area and associated grid cells can be seen in Figure 11. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 'VC-ks Park - --- y } Sherman Dr. N eaticn Celle NOR—HAI Mingo Rd. 1 r,ri i 3rt'3 n�3 I• 3� ! Fzr♦: cCer�:a Din n • - Q Ui a j�untSl:e Q d o■ 't,h S.:clg Ashli Oak<. Y of _ # - xaF r, 1 rrli I I Figure 11 HEC-RAS Model Extents The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) 2021 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) was utilized to create the base Manning's n values for the 2D cells. The NLCD dataset was used to estimate Manning's n values primarily because,it was observed to have additional detail that was more appropriate in some areas in determining manning's n values for the floodplain over the land use data provided by the NFS. For example, the "Parks/Open" space land use type in the dataset provided by the NFS includes grassland as well as forest, which have very different manning's n values (i.e. 0.04 vs 0.15). The NLCD separates grassland and forest into separate land use categories so appropriate roughness values can be represented. Figure 12 illustrates how the NLCD land use and associated manning's values vary spatially. Figure 13 illustrates how the NFS land use type "Parks/Open" space can include different land use types that have different manning's values. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Grassland,n=0.038(NLCD) Grassland Grassland I ■ F-r r�-k -:.,.per Creek CC Trib 1� Forest Legend Manning's n values . 0.200 Park/Open Space,n=0.038(NFS) 0.168 0.137 Deciduous Forest,n=0.15(NLCD) 0.105 I 0.073 0.042 0.010 I 500 ft I Figure 12 NLCD land use types and Manning's n assignment Park/Open Space n=0.038 _ Grassland,n=0.038(NLCD) f N p,. n Cooper Creek id r a f� j Cooper Creek "1 CC Trib 10 ,r M s Park/Open Space,n=0-038(NFS) Deciduous Forest,n=0.15(NLCD) �- Park en Space Entire Area Figure 13 NFS Land Use Type and Manning's n assignments Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Manning's n values for the channel were also created that would be used in place of base values from the NLCD data. Channel values of 0.04 and 0.015 were used for the earthen channel and concrete channel portions respectively. The base Manning's n values were assigned based on average Manning's n values assigned to each NLCD land used description from HEC-RAS 2D User's Manual. Table 9 indicates the base values that were assigned for each land use type. Table 9 Assigned Manning's n Values for NLCD Land Use Assigned Minimum Maximum Manning's n (21D User's (211) User's NLCD Land Use Description Value Manual) Manual) NoData 0.06 Grassland-Herbaceous 0.0375 0.025 0.05 Pasture-Hay 0.0375 0.025 0.05 Open Water 0.0375 0.025 0.05 Developed, Open Space 0.04 0.03 0.05 Developed, Medium Intensity 0.12 0.08 0.16 Developed, Low Intensity 0.09 0.06 0.12 Barren Land Rock-Sand-Clay 0.0265 0.023 0.03 Cultivated Crops 0.035 0.02 0.05 Deciduous Forest 0.15 0.1 0.2 Shrub-Scrub 0.115 0.07 0.16 Woody Wetlands 0.0975 0.045 0.15 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0.0675 0.05 0.085 Developed, High Intensity 0.16 0.12 0.2 Mixed Forest 0.14 0.08 0.2 Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.08 0.16 3.2 Stream Crossings Using the SA/21D Area Hydraulic Connection feature, the existing bridges and culverts were added to the model using a combination of data from studies previously performed in the watershed as well as field measurement. Elevations for the field measured crossings were established by combining crossing measurements with the 1m Lidar data which accurately provided road elevations immediately adjacent to the stream crossing as well as channel invert elevations. For study purposes, it was assumed that no debris effects would alter bridge openings during flood stages. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Culverts, bridges, and selected detention pond hydraulic structures were modeled as SA/2D Area connections. SA/2D Area connections are model elements that hydraulically connect internal and external model elements. These connections were used inside of the same 2D area to define key urban features (e.g., embankments, culverts, and bridges). Every crossing in Cooper Creek was not modeled in HEC-RAS but only those considered most important for flood hydrograph routing and water surface elevation computation through the primary damage area. A list of the SA/2D Connections in the HEC-RAS model is included in Table 10. A plan and profile view of the Windsor Drive crossing is shown in Figure 14 as an example. Table 10 List of SA/2D Connections Crossing Name Stream Name Loop 288 CC Tributary 11 Tributary Strickland Detention Pond CC Tributary 13 Loop 288 CC Tributary 15 Loop 288 CC Tributary 15 Tributary Regional Detention Pond #1 Cooper Creek Sherman Dr. Cooper Creek Stuart Rd. Cooper Creek Windsor Dr. Cooper Creek Kings Row Stream CC-2 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas coNua cc wrNo60R 822 Legend � I �WaY 620 Exten&Tm+to Pace Ponta KW Col Mn Ekv 618 1W Cel Mn Ebv c Current Terran 616 I W l 614 612 610 0 40 60 8C 100 120 Stator I M i v r AL 0 Figure 14 Plan and Profile View of Windsor Dr. SA/2D Connection Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 3.3 Boundary Conditions The downstream boundary condition to determine the starting water surface elevations for Cooper Creek approximately 5 miles downstream of Sherman Drive was established using a normal depth slope of 0.002. The results in the study area are not sensitive to changes in the downstream boundary assumption with an elevation change of around 100 feet from the downstream end to Sherman Drive. Flow hydrographs for each subbasin were computed within HEC-HMS and were then added into the HEC- RAS 2D flow area using internal boundary conditions. These hydrographs were then routed through the HEC-RAS model using the 2D unsteady flow Diffusive Wave equations. 3.4 Description of HEC-RAS Plans Table 11 contains a brief description of the alternatives within the HEC-RAS model and identifies the HEC- RAS plan files associated with each alternative. Each alternative has 8 separate plan files representing the 2-yr, 5-yr,10-yr, 25-yr, 50-yr, 100-yr, 200-yr, and 500-yr events. Table 11 HEC-RAS Plan Files for Alternatives HEC-RAS Plan Files Alternative Description (.pXX) W0131 Without-Project Condition 09- 16 2A1 Detention above Sherman 17- 24 2C1 Detention above Stuart ( elev 637) 74-81 2D1 Detention above Stuart ( elev 634) 82-89 03-08, 3A1 Detention (2C1) +channelization at Windsor Dr. 30,31 5A1 Detention (2C1) and bridge improvement at Sherman Dr. 40-47 25- 29, 71 - 8A1 Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Dr. 73 17A1 Detention (2C1) + bridge improvement (8A1) +channelization (8A1) 32-39 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 4.0 PLAN FORMULATION The goal of plan formulation was to determine if there was an economically and technically feasible structural, non-structural, or combined plan for reducing flood risk on Cooper Creek in Denton, TX. The non-structural plans did not require any additional H&H modeling.The structural plans were evaluated by making modifications to the hydraulic model such as increases to floodplain storage or conveyance and/or increases to hydraulic structure conveyance for the purpose of reducing water surface elevations and associated flood risk.The first step was to identify an economic damage reach. Based on previous USACE studies and input from the NFS, the primary areas of flooding concern were along Cooper Creek above Mingo Rd. During development of existing conditions modeling, a significant number of structures, between 0.25—1.0 mile upstream of the NFS identified area (Between Stuart Rd. and Windsor Dr.), were experiencing economic damages in the 10-year to 25-year floodplains as well. After the primary areas of flooding concern were identified, the watershed was investigated to determine economically feasible opportunities to reduce flood risk. Much of the watershed has been developed and locations to implement flood risk management measures was limited. The Project Delivery Team (PDT) identified several alternatives and combinations of alternatives to investigate for flood risk management feasibility. The alternatives were then represented in the hydraulic model where hydrologic and hydraulic information was used to help determine economic benefits. An economic analysis was developed for the structural alternatives. This required determining the costs associated with constructing the structural changes such as: purchasing real estate, excavation/hauling/disposal, and culvert improvements/enlargements. Preliminary costs were calculated, and Flood Damage Analysis (HEC-FDA) was run to obtain the Expected Annual Damages (EADs). A ratio of benefits over costs (B/C ratio) and net benefits were calculated for the structural alternative. The analysis resulted in the determination that all of the structural alternatives considered would produce a B/C ratio less than one. Cost and benefit details are located in the economic appendix of the study report. Unless flood risk management measures are implemented, flooding is expected to continue. Measures investigated included detention, channel improvement, and bridge/culvert improvement, in different combinations. The alternatives that were analyzed will be described in the following section. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 4.1 Structural Alternative Details 2A1 (Detention above Sherman Drive) This alternative sought to utilize land already owned by the City of Denton and minimize impacts to the environment. An area approximately 500 feet wide and 100 feet long was excavated (4,800 cubic yards) from park area upstream of Sherman Drive. Figure 15 shows the location of alternative 2A1. M Figure 15 Location of alternative 2A1 This alternative added some floodwater storage capacity in the right overbank. 2A1 included up to 6 feet of excavation in the right overbank. To minimize impacts to the environment, this alternative will use native grass plantings. A sample section of this alternative is included in Figure 16. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas ra Sample Section Pbt I Table Terrain Profile Plot bib i Terrain.Cl - —A2A 636 r 63d o Without Project q 1 O1 D w 632 630 With Project 628 50 100 150 200 250 Station[ft] Figure 16 Sample section from alternative 2A1 2A1 resulted in a maximum water surface elevation reduction of about 0.5 feet over a small stretch of Cooper Creek upstream of Sherman Drive but did not reduce the water surface elevation between Sherman Drive. and Windsor Dr.ive where several homes are located within the floodplain. Figure 17 and Figure 18 shows how much the 25-year and 100-years water surface elevation was reduced by alternative 2A1. Figure 19 and Figure 20 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 2A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison(25-year) 650 649 —Without Project 646 6 —2A1(Detention above Sherman Dr) 642 Excavation Limits 640 x—mac 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 tE 632 0 630 E.Sherman Dr. 628 W 626 624 622 620 618 616 614 E.Windsor Dr. 612 610 260DO 27000 2800C. 29000 30000 31000 32000 33000 Station(feet) Figure 17 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2A1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 646 —Without Project 644 _2A1(Detention above Sherman Dr) 642 Excavation Limits 640 x—�t 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 o 630 628 E.Sherman Dr. W 626 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 — — 260D0 27000 280CC 29DDD 30000 310DO 32nrcii 330CC Station(feet) Figure 18 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2A1 (100-yr event) i Laguna Dt '�, •. �► - �M, '�° Denton Concr +►�. .,t , Laguna Dr d�Ln �' tfor •.� -�' - rra Dr ��`r"Mr Z Pi k- ic k i� •� JL Y Singing Tex mC_UI as ' �PraiSetht. ackalonc Photography .. ' glue •{R �L•� �"' o Nett0ShL Elemen see -m.Denton Concr MA ldr • - . 1 ' ' or 9�f .1► d Ln . 4�. •1 Pickwick En •.. y 1 $ ! Singing.T,exas ackalonc � hotography eK Nett uiiz � nr t�� •:Z 3� �" ;� Elemen Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2C1 (Detention above Stuart Road, elevation 637 feet) This alternative sought to utilize a large area of undeveloped land upstream of Stuart Rd. This area is not owned by the City of Denton and will result in more environmental impacts due to existing trees, however this area has a significant amount of volume that could be used for floodwater storage. Figure 21 shows the location of alternative 2C1. .r �r1111 4 i A _, �� Mar 1 � •y �• rI , I � y 1 �r 2W ft I I Figure 21 Location of alternative 2C1 About 9 acres of land was excavated to elevation 637 feet and resulted in an average excavation depth of 7 feet (Total excavation volume is 106,000 cubic yards). The alternative would include an earthen weir approximately 850 feet in length cut to an elevation of 640.5 feet which would optimize the flood storage of the peak of flood hydrograph. The elevation could be increased or decreased to focus flood shaving for different events, but the 25-year event was the event that was selected as a compromise between frequent flood events like the 10-year event and more infrequent flood events like the 100- year. The alternative also includes a pipe at the downstream end to drain the detention area. This Cooper Creek,Denton Texas detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. A sample section of this alternative is included in Figure 22. Sample Section Without Pro]ec Terrai .Clone 614 rV _ VA o 5 feet .2"'640 — w 638 \ ith Project 630 0 100 .0 400 500 60-C 700 Station [`t] Figure 22 Sample section from alternative 2C1 2C1 resulted in a reduction of discharges due to the flood storage capacity. The reduction in flow resulted in a maximum water surface elevation reduction of about 1.4 feet (25-year event)with structures along a large portion of Cooper Creek benefitting from the alternative due to the reduced discharges. Figure 23 and Figure 24 shows how much the 25-year and 100-year water surface elevation was reduced by alternative 2C1. Figure 25 and Figure 26 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 2C1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison (2S-year) 650 648 Without Project Detention Limas 646 644 20(Detention above Stuart(Elevation 637) 642 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 0 630 E.Sherman Dr. 628 W 626 624 622 620 618 616 614 E-Windsor Dr. 612 610 26000 'iii 29DDO 30000 31000 32000 33W Station(feet) Figure 23 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2C1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 Detention limas 646 -Without Project 644 -2C1(Detention above Stuart(Elevation 637) 642 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 o 630 628 E.Sherman Dr. W 626 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 26OW 27000 28OCC 900C uuCC: 31000 32000 3300C Figure 24 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2C1 (100-year) i -Liul lbu Ct Laguna Dr rye'" Denton Concret t 11 a Dr. S't�atford Ln .�,1� ,• Cier►a D, Pickw � y .;u. Hat• • • _ Qr' T � `.� .fit�� • ' •• • • : . , `- ,;, '�;�,,t�"'•�� =4 Sin ing Texas 5 i0u , praiseiTrhu �� •Heather ' kalone Pho og shy �� • FQ'lq ,� ► X�, •�,'� ��;�•" .. Blue Bo ' �, ••t r'.. " •i' goy �tte'Sliultz _VLA w•r S~. ' EI nt 1.9una Dr �, i1 i t�rr Denton�Coc�creet r• .ta9n8 DrreKoW�Ln :t • ' Ib)� AR`�i " s �Pickwickiln , ii •t �: ,y � 5.�,�`,'_� err:�,,,�� p i+ • • 4 %, . Singing.T,exaS Niou prai' '2h� 0 ,t I(alo�ne�PholograAhy `, � - �a�''�r;, '� l •'' •,,��•• • •'• A raAh Buie 8�,1 `�� ,�a� Ff�i ' +►�,. r �`' :j' w r� • 1�� EIS nt Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 2D1 (Detention above Stuart Road, elevation 634 feet) This alternative is similar to 2C1 but has additional excavation depth, lower earthen weir elevation, and longer drainage pipe.This alternative sought to utilize a large area of undeveloped land upstream of Stuart Rd. This area is not owned by the City of Denton and will result in more environmental impacts due to existing trees, however this area has a significant amount of volume that could be used for floodwater storage. Figure 27 shows the location of alternative 2D1. airy %did - „rl +A vr �. .s IF 4 Figure 27 Location of alternative 2D1 About 9 acres of land was excavated to elevation 634 feet and resulted in an average excavation depth of 10 feet(Total excavation volume is 151,000 cubic yards). The alternative would include an earthen weir approximately 850 feet in length cut to an elevation of 639.8 feet which would optimize the flood storage of the peak of flood hydrograph. The elevation could be increased or decreased to focus flood shaving for different events, but the 25-year event was the event that was selected as a compromise between frequent flood events like the 10-year event and more infrequent flood events like the 100- year. The alternative also includes a pipe at the downstream end to drain the detention area. This detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation Cooper Creek,Denton Texas of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. A sample section of this alternative is included in Figure 28. Sample Section Without Project —Terrain.Clore f.1.1 h•1; r 64C 0 Weir elevation, 639.8 feet V W 638 636 - - - I With Project 634 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Station[ft] Figure 28 Sample section from alternative 2D1 2D1 resulted in a reduction of discharges due to the flood storage capacity. The reduction in flow resulted in a maximum water surface elevation reduction of about 1.7 feet(25-year event)with structures along a large portion of Cooper Creek benefitting from the alternative due to the reduced discharges. Figure 29 and Figure 30 shows how much the 25-year and 100-year water surface elevation was reduced by alternative 2D1. Figure 31 and Figure 32 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 21D1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison (25-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 -Without Project X 644 -2D1(Detention above Stuart(Elevation 634) 642 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. 634 9632 C 630 E_Sherman Dr. 628 W 626 624 622 620 618 E-Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 26M 'ii ii 2800C 29000 30000 31ODD 32000 33M Station(feet) Figure 29 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2D1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 Detertion Limits 646 -Without Project X 644 -2D1(Detention above Stuart(Elevation 634) 642 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 o 630 628 E.Sherman Dr. W 626 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 26000 JCCC 28OCC 29000 30000 31000 32000 3300C Station(feet) Figure 30 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2D1 (100-year event) i LagunarDr �: � y#{''` . { • "r Denton Cot�cret lb ,• errs Dr !�� PlCkwin:, • ;�. Hai• • • •ar Q'� . '� Singing.Te as- • � ► �. P,raise 2hu ckalone Photography a. o Blut1.O�� dap�.. v-Fh,`n ` � '• ,.c ,. •� �' EI nt Laguna D� Denton Cwcreet etfordILn i .. :,1 r's' _ •:.rop ' ickwick�ln � - ' • • . . . . . � {r• _ ; :ray ��,, •.� sL HL . . . . . .'fir �,, �!- •'► a • • ' �� Singing,.oe as S wou ckalone Pho�tog Fhy Fd,176 , • ' • . ra BIut�6 i. �� •.� T. Ov, �Y/tea A •.. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 3A1 (Detention (2C1) + channelization at Windsor Drive) This alternative includes the detention from alternative 2C1 and channelization around Windsor Rd. The channelization extent for this alternative was identified as the "NED Plan" in a previous USACE report titled "Cooper Creek, Denton Texas, Stage 2 Planning Draft Detailed Project Report" which was from a 1981 USACE CAP Section 205 study on Cooper Creek. Figure 33 shows the location of alternative 3A1. UP. • ' �It • r 1 ,Owft I Figure 33 Location of alternative 3A1 In addition to the detention configuration describes under alternative 2C1, channelization was performed around Windsor Dr. The channelization included approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 110,400 cubic yards. This detention alternative meets study objectives but also provides environmental benefits through creation of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. A sample section of the channelization is included in Figure 34. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Sample Section —TNn,ir.Clore - A8A Without Project C O R 6i w � E'C ith Project 6'4 20 40 60 81 100 Station[ft] Figure 34 Sample section from alternative 3A1 3A1 resulted in a reduction of discharges due to the added flood storage capacity as well as a maximum reduction in water surface elevation of 1.3 feet(25-year event) with structures along a large portion of Cooper Creek benefitting from the alternative due to the reduced water surface elevations. Figure 35 and Figure 36 shows how much the 25-year and 100-year water surface elevation was reduced by alternative 3A1. Figure 37 and Figure 38 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 3A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison(25-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 Without Project R + 644 —3A1(Detention+Channel Improvement) 642 640 639 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 tE 632 0 630 > E.Sherman Dr. 628 Channel Improvement limits W 626 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 — 26000 27Ciiri 28MC 29000 SFOOri 310DO 32000 33M Station(feet) Figure 35 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 3A1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 —Without Project 644 —3A1(Detention+Channel lmprovemerrt) 642 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 o 630 628 E.Sherman Dr. Channel Improvement Limits W 626 X i( 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 - 26000 27000 2800C 29D00 30000 310M 32Cii_i 330p0 Station(feet) Figure 36 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 3A1 (100-year event) i Laguna Dr " ', .. Den ton Concret • . . • r s' •fc!@f/8hnr ,,i11�� Pic;' Ick'l.n ••• ^t Ell � c • ; �'�%� Singing,.Tck3n S Wou � • PraiSefThc {.l�call ckalone Phlop otoglaDhy nb�'�► � ,,,, oISM ff, �. f• yo Nette Sh Itz Laguna Di "' Denton Concret '* On x, ck+ ' % •�• G • s •, � '• • ' ��. r Singing.Texpo S k� t•-yvPr �efShc ckalone Phot g by �' d'�b��'f ' • . , . ' • ' off_� � Yr' rr, 01 a e• •�''" �o0 4 NetAlpte�SliultZ y, Eleme, a + • Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 5A1 (Detention (2C1) and bridge improvements at Sherman Drive) The goal with this alternative was to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by adding flood storage with detention (Configuration from alternative 2C1) and increasing the capacity through the Sherman Drive bridge. The capacity increase was based on a configuration analyzed and costed during a 2009 study performed for the City of Denton by an engineering firm. Figure 39 shows the location of alternative 5A1. JCI CI.ICU- LAbOr OlIV1�LAIQ RA-S\1 .( '�'��r--��_ AL Fit r �A? Ik Ito DO i Figure 39 Location of alternative 5A1 In addition to the detention configuration described under alternative 2C1,the Sherman Drive crossing capacity was increased from a a single 30-foot clear span to 2—40 ft by 8 ft clear spans with a single 2 ft wide pier and vertical abutments This provided a significant increase in flow area through the bridge (From 210 square feet to 640 square feet). Figure 40 provides an illustration of how the existing crossing compares to the proposed crossing from 5A1. The cost estimate for the improvements to Sherman Drive from the 2009 study was$1M. Details associated with the cost estimate for this alternative are included in Figure 41. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas t t 0 t Monterrey Drive s a� ' a _ 3 v � Relocate 72"'JVater Relocate Relocate 15'SS I "S.S Remove 48'Storm eie F 1 & 2-40'Bndge Spans 634 Install Box GatHon �O Regrade Ci 7404 Sherman Drive Legend • Existing Udlotws Proposed thilities ' we cr —war ONE ;..,:.,y ... .--now Proposed Feahnes — -Sw".V so— ONE Pa. 94.E 5� !-*-y?--1A.Icb War "War V.w Existing Feetues �^oo+ Wa ON E Pw Q•,....o„a Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Study WITH DETENTION Sherman[hive JACOBS Figure 40 Layout of proposed bridge improvements for alternative 5A1 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas City of Denton Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Sherman Dr (2 Spans) Scenarios 2&4 Item Unit No. Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost 1 Mobilization(5%i 1 LS $33,315.00 $33,315 2 15-Sanitary Sewer Pipe 550 LF $120.00 S66,000 3 4'X4'Sanitary Sewer Manhole 3 EA $3.000.00 $9,000 4 Remove Existing 8"&15" Sanitary Sewer 520 LF $10.00 $5.200 5 Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 2 EA S1.000.00 $2.000 6 48"Class III RCP 110 LF $180.00 $19.800 7 Remove 48" Storm Drain Pipe 60 LF $15.00 $900 8 36-Class III RCP 150 LF S150.00 $22.500 9 Headwall&Win_ all Structure 1 EA $4.000.00 $4,000 10 12-Water Line 340 LF S80.00 $27.200 11 12"Gate Valve 3 EA S2.000 00 $6,000 12 1 Remove 8'&12'W ater Line 450 LF $5.00 $2,250 13 JAsphall Pavement Repair Utilities 140 LF S70.00 $9.800 14 Trench Safety 450 LF $3.00 $1.350 15 Property Acquisition & Demolition 1 LS $55,800.00 $55,800 16 Remove Existing Bride 1 LS S20.000.00 S20,000 17 2-40'Span Bride 5.280 SF $65.00 S343,200 18 Bridge Excavation 1.560 CY S15.00 $23,400 19 12-Asphalt Pavement Repair. Bridge 590 SY $70.00 $41,300 20 JChannel Excavation 200 CY $15.00 $3,000 21 Power Pole Relocation (By Others) 1 LS $0.00 So 22 Hydromulch(Channel Slope Stabilization 400 SY $9.00 $3,600 23 PVC Coated Box Gabion 13'x3') 150 CY $180.00 $27,000 24 Traffic Control 1 LS $20.000.00 $20.000 25 SWPPP 1 LS $10,000 00 $10,000 Subtotal - Construction $756.600 W0*Q Contingency S151,320 Construction Total S907,900 10%Engineering Survey $90,790 Total Protect Cost S998,700 Item 21 - Requires power pole relocation by others Figure 41 Cost estimate for Sherman Drive bridge improvements from 2009 study for City of Denton 5A1 resulted in a reduction of discharges due to the added flood storage capacity as well as a maximum reduction in water surface elevation of 2.8 feet (25-year event)with structures along a large portion of Cooper Creek benefitting from the alternative due to the reduced water surface elevations. Figure 42 and Figure 43 shows how much the 25-year and 100-year water surface elevation was reduced by alternative SAL Figure 44 and Figure 45 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 5A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison (25-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 -Without Project 644 642 -5A1(Detention+(Sherman Dr)Bridge Improvement) 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 tE 632 o 630 628 E.Sherman Dr. W626 Increase in bridge 624 opening 622 capacity 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 26000 27000 28000 29000 30uC0 310,: 32000 330CC Station(feet) Figure 42 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 5A1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 Detention limits 646 -With out Project 644 642 -5A1(Detention+(Sherman Dr)Bridge Improvement) 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 632 o 630 go 628 E.Sherman Dr. W 626 Increase 624 in 622 opening opacity 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 614 612 610 260DO 2?000 28OCC 30000 31''' 32000 330CC Figure 43 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 5A1 (100-year event) i guns r , una Dr cm rclafn k (T7 :,errs D► r�;M' Pick`wiCkl nor ' •• U HEIL- -i � �. • Singing Tex9>r'S ► MOUOw ckalone Photo�g�a.Pby '�bv�' •K • 4L ON Nette'Sfi`ILZ Itz y� Elemerrta ` Denton oncret TtI �""r+4 !�;• Laguna Dr. rtlu n �'. ►, • 16; �; • .,. 7CrraID► Pickwlck' n' S ^ .•`� in ing ex3iS !ro I r ..R••I �h`� ckalone Photogra by ,'� • . , • . ' r$ r� t r o_ aUAB°� w� 1y. Q Opr i."I '.- ^ ^�••' '_ yt o� � Nette Stiultz • '� g . .._. • '�' y�� '�� Elemen.a ,�` - cc) Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 8A1 (Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Drive) The goal of this alternative was to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by increasing the Cooper Creek channel capacity and crossing capacity at Windsor Dr. The channelization extent for this alternative was identified as the "NED Plan" in a previous USACE report titled "Cooper Creek, Denton Texas, Stage 2 Planning Draft Detailed Project Report" which was from a 1981 USACE CAP Section 205 study on Cooper Creek. Figure 46 shows the location of alternative 8A1. v - -�• i FCC . ie All- ' � 50Q ft•L I Figure 46 Location of alternative 8A1 Channelization was performed around Windsor Dr. The channelization included approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The crossing capacity was increased from 4-8 ft x 8 ft culverts to 4—8 ft x 8 ft culverts and 2— 8 ft wide by 6 ft high culverts. It is assumed that that the 4 existing culverts will need to be demolished and replaced with 6 new culverts.The total excavation amount for this alternative is 4,400 cubic yards. To minimize impacts to the environment,this alternative will use native grass plantings. A sample section of the channelization is included in Figure 47. A figure showing the without-project and with- project culvert configuration is included in Figure 48. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Sample Section 622 —Terrain.Clone 620 — Without Project , 618 — 0 R w w 616 ith Project 614 — C ZO 40 60 81 100 Station[ft] Figure 47 Sample section for alternative 5A1 Cooper Creek,Denton Texas E2= without-project configuration 620 ---- -•-- ---- -- =C 60 �tffibn ifti - with-project configuration 5tE 4 d 616 w 61a 1 I 612 610 0 20 60 30 1JC Station tt Figure 48 Culvert configuration (without-project vs with-project (8A1) Alternative 8A1 resulted in a maximum water surface elevation reduction of 1.2 feet (25-year event) between Windsor Drive and Sherman Drive but did not provide any benefits upstream of Sherman Drive An important note about this alternative is that it did result in some increase in flood risk downstream of the improvements. The water surface elevation increases as high as 0.4 feet(25-year event) were identified and would need to be addressed. One possible solution is to combine this alternative with upstream detention. Figure 49 and Figure 50 shows how much the 25-year water surface elevation was reduced by alternative 8A1. Figure 51 and Figure 52 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 8A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison (25-year) 650 648 646 —Without Project 644 642 - 8A1(Channel and Bridge Improvement through Windsor Dr) 640 638 636 Stuart Dr- 634 T .. w 632 0 630 > 628 Channel Improvement Limits E.Sherman Dr. w 626 624 Increase in water surface 622 elevation. 620 Additional areas E.Windsor Dr. 618 farther 616 downstream 614 _ 612 - 610 26000 27000 25CG_ 29000 st f—tl Figure 49 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 8A1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison (100-year) 650 648 646 —Without Project — 644 642 8A1(Channel and Bridge Improvement through Windsor Dr) 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. u 634 T 632 0 630 ' , q 628 E-Sherman Dr. Limits -,° 626 Increase in " 624 water surface 622 elevation. - 620 Additional areas 61 farther ' E.Windsor Dr. 616 do tream wns 614 __-_ r 612 610 — 2600D 27000 28CC:, 29000 30000 31000 32000 33000 Station(feet) Figure 50 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 8A1 (100-year event) i Ana Denton Concret 4aguna Dr ` ' Ordlln Dr fit" Pickwin' R Singing Te asl kalon a Photography , '�� d��b��j St' `r,` :► . �r`` -k ' . • ,` , ''�d � �o�4 �Nette Shultz Elem ntar 00 • Dentorr•Concret �guna Drr I ova In Pickwick+,Ln. Singing»Texas� •fir ., Prat-0 •, ckaIbne Phot0g�aphy, ��• • . , . -� r Nette Sh�Ultz � h0 I z Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 17A1 (Detention (2Q+bridge improvements(8A1)+channelization(8A1)) The goal with this alternative was to reduce the water surface elevations through Cooper Creek by adding flood storage with detention (Configuration from alternative 2C1) and increasing channel and crossing capacity along Cooper Creek and through Windsor Dr(8A1). Figure 53 shows the location of alternative 17A1. .00 wow Id 0 OL OiL$jit low ft Figure 53 Location of alternative 17A1 In addition to the detention configuration described under alternative 2C1, channelization was also performed around Windsor Dr. The channelization included approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The crossing capacity was increased from 4-8 ft x 8 ft culverts to 4—8 ft x 8 ft culverts and 2—8 ft wide by 6 ft high culverts. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 110,400 cubic yards. A sample section of the channelization is included in Figure 54. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Terrain Profile Plot 622 —Terrain.done _A. I 620 - I i ' 618 c 4 � w i 6-6 6'-1 -— 0 20 40 60 80 10C Station[ft] Figure 54 Sample section from alternative 17A1 Alternative 17A1 resulted in a maximum water surface elevation reduction of 2.4 feet (25-year event) with structures along a large portion of Cooper Creek benefitting from the alternative due to the reduced water surface elevations. Figure 55 and Figure 56 shows how much the water surface elevations reduced by alternative 17A1. Figure 57 and Figure 58 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative 17A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events. Cooper Creek,Denton Texas Water Surface Elevation Comparison(25-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 >�-x 644 -Without Project 642 640 -17A1(Detention+(EEWindsor Dr)Bridge Improvement+Channel Improvement,) 638 636 Stuart Dr. v 634 tt 632 o 630 > 628 Channel Improvement Limits E_Sherman Dr. W 626 624 622 620 618 E_Windsor Dr. 616 Increase 614 in culvert 612 opacity 610 26000 27000 28000 29000 30000 310DO 32000 33000 Station(feet) Figure 55 Water surface elevation reductions for alternative 17A1 (25-year event) Water Surface Elevation Comparison(100-year) 650 648 Detention Limits 646 -Without Project 644 642 -17A1(Detention+(E.Windsor Dr)Bridge Improvement+Channef Improvements) 640 638 636 Stuart Dr. 634 w� 632 o 630 m 628 E-Sherman Dr. > Channel Improvement Limits W 626 r�-x 624 622 620 618 E.Windsor Dr. 616 Increase in 614 culvert 612 opacity 610 26000 2800C 29DDO 30000 31000 ii 3300C Station(feet) Figure 56 Water surface elevation reductions for alternative 17A1 (100-year event) i Denton Concret No guna Dr stiord Ln VF\ • ,i, .i "ierraIDr. L • `Pic`ick n �. •WL Hat. I EL :� �. ' • ti Sing ing,*,,exas Woul -� Praise+Ch� % jt •�,Mr' ca..t� L- �, kalon a-Pho og`raphy life~ F4'lnb��+, , Nsr jam; • ; Wr o. ILI �^' o�,• "�' Netle'ShUltz t ii. 3► ,dEleme�tar School c�rma -quenton oncre ,,t ;uC L.aguna Dr d Ln �: .- - T .� ralDr.� .��c� , ' .• Pickwick.in i _ • • ^ •k t Singing.Texas ol Photograp hy lbAy !� - • �/�:�� .f may "Y - ; Q '�..;k _ o� r,�: '•Nette SIiultz i •J 4� G! �-r�-r . Elemehim r I ' Cooper Creek,Denton Texas 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Hydraulic analyses was performed to provide information that will help assess flood risk as well as inform flood risk management decision making within the Cooper Creek watershed. The resulting hydraulic data was then used to determine the expected (average) annual flood damages. This existing conditions model was then used to analyze structural and non-structural flood damage reduction alternatives along Cooper Creek throughout the City of Denton. After existing conditions were developed,Cooper Creek was analyzed to determine what physical changes could be made that would be most effective in reducing flood risk. Open space was considered for detention while existing floodplain was considered for channel and crossing improvement. Costs were then calculated and Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Damage Analysis (HEC-FDA) was utilized to obtain the EADs. A ratio of benefits over costs (B/C ratio) and net benefits were then calculated. While flood risk could be reduced with the alternatives identified and analyzed, the economic analysis resulted in the determination that all of the structural alternative would produce a B/C ratio less than one. Cost and benefit details are in the economic appendix of the study report. Model Limitations and Needs for Future Study • Equation Set Testing — The Diffusion Wave equation set was selected for simulations in the analysis. This equation was selected for efficient run times and model stability. There are 3 shallow water equations (SWE) available that account for more information than the Diffusion Wave equations. The SWE will generally require a smaller computation interval than the Diffusion Wave method to run in a stable manner. If there are significant differences between the two runs,the user should assume the SWE answer is more accurate. The following is a list of examples where the SWE should generally be used. o Highly Dynamic Flood Waves o Abrupt Contractions and Expansions o Flat(less than 1 ft/mi) Sloping River Systems o Tidally Influenced Conditions o General Wave Propagation Modeling o Super Elevation around Bends o Detailed Velocities and Water Surface Elevations at Structures o Mixed Flow Regime • Model Detail Below Mingo Rd—While the results at and downstream of Mingo Rd. do not impact the results of the study area, future studies at and downstream of Mingo Rd. may warrant additional analysis to verify the results in the primary areas of interest. Hydraulic structures were Cooper Creek,Denton Texas not incorporated downstream of Mingo Rd. which could have an impact on flow hydrograph routing and computations. • Detention Refinement — The detention alternatives were developed to optimize flood risk reduction to the 25-year flood water surface elevations. Weir elevation was the primary parameter that was optimized. Sherman Drive was the location where reductions to water surface elevation were being analyzed. Additional refinements storage volume, weir length and weir height, as well as the primary location of interest for water surface elevation reduction may have improved economic and flood risk reduction benefits. REFERENCES 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study: Denton County,Texas; 48121CV001 (2001) 2. Freese and Nichols, Inc. Stormwater Master Plan Needs Assessment. Prepared for City of Denton. September 2023. 3. Jacobs Engineering Group. Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Preliminary Engineering Final Report. Prepared for City of Denton (015322.010.001.0006). July 2009. 4. Nelson,Thomas L. "Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Relationships Trinity River Tributaries, Fort Worth-Dallas Urban Area," 1970. 5. NOAA, NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States: Volume 11 Version 2.0: Texas, 2018. 6. NOAA(US Department of Commerce Weather Bureau), Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. May, 1961. 7. Rodman, Paul K. "Effects of Urbanization on Various Frequency Peak Discharges," 1977. 8. Texas Geographic Information Office. North and Central Texas Lidar, 2020. https://data.geographic.texas.gov/?category=Elevation,Lidar&pg=& gl=1*18vupsy* ga*OTM2 Ni13NiYyLiE3MiEzMTE2MTA.* ga CGH7RBEG6M*MTcyMTMxMTYxMC4xLiAuMTcyMTMxMTYx MC4wLiAuMA. Accessed June 2024. 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Detailed Project Report, Cooper Creek, Denton,Texas. February 1982. 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Final Interim Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment. Pecan Bayou Watershed. Brownwood,Texas. February 2003. 11. U.S. Census Bureau, "QuickFacks, City of Denton Texas" < https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dentoncitytexas/LND110210>, accessed on January 3, 2025. Appendix E : Civil Engineering Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 Engineering 1. General A feasibility study took place to prepare a total of seven alternatives in Denton,Texas within the Cooper Creek channel. Due to being a feasibility study, no engineering plan sheets were prepared. All structural alternatives were found to have sub 1.0 benefit cost ratios (BCR). 2. Civil Design Alternative 2A1 (Detention Above Sherman Dr., Elev. 638 Feet) This alternative is located upstream of Sherman Drive and consists of approximately 4,800 cubic yards of earthwork to better channelize flow and reduce water surface elevation through increased cross-sectional area.The cut widens the channel by roughly 80 feet with a bottom elevation of 638 feet.This alternative would include engineering with nature features that include native plantings that can be found in Table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. tA Y . � �'' � � �' `mac.. `.. . � I�. ,�•1^ I Alternative 2C1 Detention above Stuart Rd, Elev. 637 Feet) This alternative is located upstream of Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre detention pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with the bank along the creek terminating at an elevation of 640.5 feet that would act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow conditions and be lined with 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric on both sides of"weir".All other sides would meet existing elevations. The bottom of the detention pond would have a maximum elevation of 637 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the removal of large number of trees that would not require replanting and 106,000 cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill.The detention pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24" reinforced concrete pipe that outflows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of the detention pond. An existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper Creek and would require either the relocation of the line or the invert elevations to be lowered to keep a minimum of 2 feet of cover.A concrete sidewalk would be removed and replaced with like dimensions and would be meet all ADA requirements.This alternative would include engineering with nature features that include native plantings within the detention pond and can be found in Table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. T v r7 VL Vr CIO=;' , ! ei Aft rri Ali'.0 Alternative 2D1 (Detention above Stuart Rd, Elev. 634 Feet) This alternative is located upstream of Stuart Drive in and consists of a 9.3acre detention pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with the bank along the creek terminating at an elevation of 639.8 feet that would act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow conditions and be lined with 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric on both sides of"weir".All other sides would meet existing elevations. The bottom of the detention pond would have a maximum elevation of 634 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the removal of large number of trees that would not require replanting and 151,000 cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill.The detention pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24" reinforced concrete pipe that outflows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of the detention pond. An existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper Creek and would require either the relocation of the line or the invert elevations to be lowered to keep a minimum of 2 feet of cover.A concrete sidewalk would be removed and replaced with like dimensions and would be meet all ADA requirements.This alternative would include engineering with nature features that include native plantings within the detention pond and can be found in Table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. • A 1. •, lt� 1 tl ? r 1 . JAL 1K.L Alternative 3A1 (Detention (M) +Channelization at Windsor Dr.) This alternative includes the detention from alternative 2C1 and channelization around Windsor Rd.The channelization included approximately 850 feet of grass lined channel improvement with a bottom width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The total excavation amount for this alternative is 110,400 cubic yards.All required construction from Alternative 2C1 would take place within this alternative. In addition to this,Windsor drive includes multiple existing utilities and a bridge that would be required to be removed and replaced. Currently,the bridge has 50-foot width and 4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts.This alternative would widen the channel at the crossing to house a total of 6 box culverts under the bridge,4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts and 2-8 foot by 6-foot box culverts.This alternative requires relocation of a 15" ductile iron pipe water line, 15" PVC sanitary sewer line, and sanitary sewer manholes and a 36" RCP storm drain would be reinstalled on the south bank.An existing power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require reconstruction with 12" asphalt pavement. Channel slope stabilization, such as 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric, would be installed to reduce erosion after bare earthwork along the channel sides in addition to native plantings such as those found in table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. Existing 12"Water / Line New 2-8'x6' Box Culverts _ Existing Natural Gas Line Remove&Replace 4-8'x8'Box Culverts Relocate 15"SDR 26 Remove&Replace Sanitary Sewer Line Asphalt Bridge - i- Remove&Replace 36"Storm Line Remove and Replace Power Pole H ° /� wai �•,•, �f . .81 r ' Jt f jf� �t: w y;R 77 7 K.�.��_4 ' .� • 714i� j:�i :;1 .ca ,� 1 l�. / y.+ "`M" 1 7M �• � -h I l• Y. _��_>.f Yam.�I.� 1 ` � �' � - • � t'ti�� ♦ �� LN �"' ,4i r,�" ' .1 �• �� • -i I1 • ��a /gyp • Alternative 5A1 (Detention 2C1) and Bridge improvements at Sherman Dr.) Alternative 5A1 involves an existing crossing located at Sherman Drive and the previous alternative 2C1.The bridge opening would be widened to 2 40' spans with wingwalls to increase flow under the bridge from a cross sectional area of 210 square feet to 640 square feet. This alternative requires relocation of a 12" ductile iron pipe water line, 15" PVC sanitary sewer line, and sanitary sewer manholes and a 48" RCP storm drain would be reinstalled on the north bank. An existing power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require repair with 12" asphalt pavement.The detention location is located upstream of Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre detention pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with the bank along the creek terminating at an elevation of 640.5 feet that would act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow conditions and be lined with 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric on both sides of"weir".All other sides would meet existing elevations.The bottom of the detention pond would have a maximum elevation of 637 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the removal of large number of trees that would not require replanting and 106,000 cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill.The detention pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24" reinforced concrete pipe that outflows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of the detention pond. An existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper Creek and would require either the relocation of the line or the invert elevations to be lowered to keep a minimum of 2 feet of cover. A concrete sidewalk would be removed and replaced with like dimensions and would be meet all ADA requirements. Channel slope stabilization of 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric would be installed to reduce erosion in addition to native plantings that can be found in Table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. glow now a.— f r '~' , Sherman Dr i +101 Monterrey Drive h� r Relocate 12'Water Rebate 15'S.S. Rebate Remove 48'Storm Bridge Spans Instal Box GatMon EII O?O Wj E)p ON Regrade ,T7 w 1404 Sher—an Dr v- F Legend �e..r.p e•w• �A�o„w� `'ti Exsting UCnbes Proposed Mims O ...e rr. OME wile Zway iew --now Proposed Frimies — -Srwry Sewn � O w E vye Sin—Se S.r.Irr Sw►Yi,MY —4Mre �WWr.VeM Existing F"twes esiiiiiienaees S~r sew V.-W.—es.Go- .. Nair W.. —— Cooper Creek Flood Mitigation Study '�,il•.,,�.eo WITH DETENTION ""^w'U" JACOBS Alternative 8A1 (Channelization and Bridge Improvement at Windsor Dr.) This alternative is located at the bridge crossing of Windsor Drive.Windsor drive includes multiple existing utilities and a bridge that would required to be removed and replaced. Currently, the bridge has a 50-foot width and 4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts.This alternative would widen the channel at the crossing to house a total of 6 box culvert under the bridge,4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts and 2-6 foot by 6-foot box culverts. In addition. The invert elevations of the box culverts would reduce from the existing 612.4 feet to approximately 611.3. This alternative requires relocation of a 15" ductile iron pipe water line, 15" PVC sanitary sewer line, and sanitary sewer manholes.A 36" RCP storm drain would be reinstalled on the south bank within a non-standard cast in place headwall structure. An existing power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require reconstruction with 12" asphalt pavement.Approximately,4,400 cubic yards of earthwork would be required and channel slope stabilization, such as 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric,would be installed to reduce erosion after bare earthwork along the channel sides in addition to native plantings such as those found in table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. Existing 12"Water Line New 2-8'x6' Box Culverts Existing Natural Gas Line Remove&Replace / 4-8'x8'Box Culverts 1. Relocate 15"SDR 26''Y' Remove&Replace Sanitary Sewer Line Asphalt Bridge Remove&Replace 36"Storm Line , ' S k! Remove and Relocate 15" Replace Power Pole v DIP Water Line ' 9j, , dvt + �. I y �'.�r'•Via. H�"4 :""f ,�, �r�,�,., _� : , ° ( . �� .• "J,�+.';r rl IRr�1J1!' mod► Qt 44 [,� ,1, a,t 'S� fir' �� _ •- , r tom. PPP' •. r ,;q, `, Nr, �•' `� `r •� .. y �'�. Without Project ---- ---- ---- ---- i ao Station(R) With-project 62a 622 620 r 2 61a ru 616 W 61a 612 610 0 20 =0 60 80 10C Station i ft; Alternative 17A1 (Detention (2C1)+Bridge Improvements(8A1)+Channelization (8A1)) This alternative is a combination of previous alternatives 2C1 and 8A1. Alternative 2C1 is located upstream of Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre detention pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with the bank along the creek terminating at an elevation of 640.5 feet that would act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow conditions and be lined with 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric on both sides of"weir".All other sides would meet existing elevations.The bottom of the detention pond would have a maximum elevation of 637 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the removal of large number of trees that would not require replanting and 106,000 cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill.The detention pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24" reinforced concrete pipe that outflows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of the detention pond. An existing 12" PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper Creek and would require either the relocation of the line or the invert elevations to be lowered to keep a minimum of 2 feet of cover.A concrete sidewalk would be removed and replaced with like dimensions and would be meet all ADA requirements.This alternative would include engineering with nature features that include native plantings within the detention pond and can be found in Table 4.1.This alternative is located at the bridge crossing of Windsor Drive. Windsor drive includes multiple existing utilities and a bridge that would required to be removed and replaced. Currently,the bridge has a 50-foot width and 4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts.This alternative would widen the channel at the crossing to house a total of 6 box culvert under the bridge,4-8 foot by 8-foot box culverts and 2-6 foot by 6-foot box culverts. In addition.The invert elevations of the box culverts would reduce from the existing 612.4 feet to approximately 611.3. This alternative requires relocation of a 15" ductile iron pipe water line, 15" PVC sanitary sewer line, and sanitary sewer manholes.A 36" RCP storm drain would be reinstalled on the south bank within a non-standard cast in place headwall structure.An existing power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require reconstruction with 12" asphalt pavement.Approximately,4,400 cubic yards of earthwork would be required and channel slope stabilization, such as 5mm nonwoven geotextile fabric, would be installed to reduce erosion after bare earthwork along the channel sides in addition to native plantings such as those found in table 4.1.This alternative was found to have a BCR under 1.0. - 1h IN, A. r T�� ire ! —�- +r � ...,:. .��• �. ..� a 3. Construction Procedures Construction Access Haul routes,traffic control plans, and construction access would vary based on the alternative(s) chosen and would be chosen to minimize disruption to local traffic. Pavement Repair Due to construction traffic, it is anticipated that local roads would be damaged and require repair. Laydown Areas Laydown areas for construction material and equipment would be required and would be decided based on the alternative(s) chosen. 4. Native Plantings In an effort to provide cost-effective, self-sustaining alternatives to traditionally engineered flood management, the planting list in Table 4.1 would be used to replant all disturbed areas due to them being native to the area of the North Texas, having deep root systems that help resist erosion of soil, and their drought tolerance. Table 4.1 Planting List Common Name Botanical Name Classificaiton Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii Grass Switchgrass Panicum virgatum var"Shenandoah' Grass Turf's Cap Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii Forb Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Grass Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Grass Eastern Gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides Grass Plains Coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria Forb Maximilian Sunflower Helianthus maximiliani Forb Sideoats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula Grass Appendix F : Geotechnical Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 1 1.0 Introduction This report documents the results of a geotechnical evaluation performed for the Cooper Creek Section 205 flood risk management project in Denton, Texas. The scope of the investigation was to obtain a historical prospective of the site, identify surface and subsurface conditions, and address geotechnical concerns relevant to the project. This report presents a summary of the findings based on historical documents and site observations. This report also includes a preliminary assessment of the geotechnical considerations for the future-with-project conditions from five screened alternatives. The alternatives listed in the table below incorporate either one or a combination of options intended to mitigate flooding impacting the surrounding residential community including, detention basins at E Sherman Dr or Stuart Rd, channelization improvements at E Windsor Dr, and bridge culvert modifications at E Sherman Dr. (2A1)Detention above E Sherman Dr Alternative 2—Detention Basin alone (2C1)Detention above Stuart Rd(elev 637) (2D1)Detention above Stuart Rd(elev 634) Alternative 3—Detention Basin and Channel Detention(20) with channelization at E Improvements Windsor Dr. Alternative 5—Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Detention(2C1)with bridge improvement at E Modifications Sherman Dr. Alternative 8—Channel Improvements and Bridge Channelization and bridge improvements at E Culvert Modifications Windsor Dr. Alternative 17-Detention Basin,Bridge Culvert Detention(20)with channelization and bridge Modifications,Channel Improvements improvements at E Windsor Dr. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 2 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1. Location and Description Cooper Creek stretches across the northeastern portion of the City of Denton, Texas. The creek flows to the southeast through a primarily residential portion of the city and feeds into Lewisville Lake. The watershed of Cooper Creek is about 6.1 miles long and conveys a drainage area of approximately 9.64 square miles. The creek is generally small but well defined, mostly unimproved channel with several tributaries. The main channel has an average depth of 6 feet, top width of 50 feet and a slope of 25 feet per mile. The creek is normally dry with flow occurring during periods of heavy rainfall. Cooper Creek is generally a trapezoidal, unlined earthen channel. There are several culvert crossings that have limited capacity and cause backwater conditions within the stream channel. The 100-year floodplain generally extends beyond the stream banks and into the residential yards. Existing detention ponds were constructed within Cooper Creek watershed to reduce flood damages along the creek. There is some channel erosion along Cooper Creek due to high velocities in the channel. 2.2. Geology The project area is in a region known as the Eastern Cross Timbers Ecoregion. This region extends southward from the Red River through eastern Denton County and along the boundary between Dallas and Tarrant counties. It then stretches through Johnson County to the Brazos River and into Hill County (Butler, 2022). The region includes rolling hills, cuestas, and ridges. Soils within the Cross Timbers are mostly sandy, loamy, and are underlain by sand, shale, clay, sandstone, calcareous shale, and limestone. Today, livestock farming is the main land use, but some cropland also occurs (TPWD-A 2024). The City of Denton sits on top of the Grayson Marl rock formation. Grayson Marl, mostly marl, is light-greenish-gray to medium-gray, weathers to grayish yellow. Thickness of Grayson Marl in Texas is between 15 and 60 feet(USGS, 2024). Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 3 3.0 Previous Investigations 3.1. Site Visit A site visit to Cooper Creek was conducted by the Fort Worth District project team on June 18, 2024. During the site trip, representatives from the City of Denton accompanied the project team and identified several problematic locations where existing infrastructure was being adversely impacted during flooding events. The following excerpt from draft feasibility report briefly describes the pressing inundations issues affecting the existing infrastructure. Beginning downstream, Cooper Creek crosses Mingo Road. Mingo Road currently is overtopped during flooding events, affecting emergency response and evacuation times, but does not create backwater affects nor damage to any structures directly upstream from the crossing. The Nottingham Drive crossing is just downstream of Avondale Park; flooding seems to cause minimal structural damages at this point, however, there is evidence of bank erosion downstream of this location. At East Sherman Drive, a bend occurs directly at the crossing with the low-lying area occurring just upstream and to the north of the crossing. Overloading and surcharging of the local storm drain system is likely during flooding events, with this location having the most properties experiencing flooding. The upstream limit of the project area does not appear to include any structures that experience flooding will likely not fall within the scope of this project. 3.2. Historical Geotech Report In lieu of performing a geotechnical investigation, a historic geotechnical document provided by the City of Denton, titled Report 187-08-06 Geotechnical Engineering Services, Cooper Creek Detention Pond, was utilized to inform and characterize the potential subsurface. In 2008, four (4) borings were drilled by CMJ Engineering, Inc. down to 12 and 17 feet below ground surface. The borings were obtained at three different locations that coincidentally surround the primary site for the proposed work at E Sherman Dr and E Windsor Dr. The closest borings were drilled at Sites 2 and 3, which are located approximately 4000-feet northwest and 3800-feet southwest from the proposed work at E Sherman Dr, respectively. Site 1 is located approximately 6000-feet east of the proposed work site. No groundwater was observed in the borings during drilling or at the time of completion. Boring logs indicate that overburden material consisting of sandy, silty, and shaly clays were encountered from the surface down to depths of about 4 feet (in the two 17-feet-deep borings) at Site 2, while overburden material was encountered down to boring termination (in the two 12- feet-deep borings) at Sites 1 and 3. These clay soils were characterized as having very stiff to hard consistencies, moisture contents ranging from 6% to 21%, with colors ranging from dark brown, brown, reddish brown, to light brown. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 4 The primary formation was only encountered at Site 2, which typically consisted of tan limestone down to depths of 10 to 15 feet, underlain by gray shale extending down to 15 and 17 feet below ground surface. Clay seams were observed throughout the limestone. Both the limestone and shale primary were classified as moderately hard to hard. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 5 4.0 Future With Project Conditions Flood protection is primarily provided by an unlined earthen channel. The channel bottom and slopes soils were observed to be primarily sandy, silty, and shaly clays with the occasional limestone outcrop. The existing channel is inadequate to provide flood protection with the 100- year plain generally extending beyond the stream banks and into residential yards. A total of five project alternatives are being selected for the future with project conditions. Of these alternatives, one alternative considers three different detention basin designs with one detention basin design at E Sherman Dr and two different detention designs at Stuart Rd. The final four alternatives incorporate a combination of the elev. 637 Stuart Rd detention basin design, with the channelization improvements or the bridge/culvert modifications to mitigate flooding. The alternatives are listed below. 4.1. Alternative 1: No Action (Future Without Project Conditions). Alternative 1 is No Action. If no action is taken the current situation with flooding would continue to occur or become more frequent as the unlined channel deteriorates. 4.2. Alternative 2: Detention Basin alone. Alternative 2 would consist of designing and constructing a detention basin in the vicinity of Cooper Creek. The detention basins would provide additional storage capacity to the creek during flooding and rainfall events, mitigating the inundation issues in the surrounding residents. • Alternative 2A1 considers the excavation and construction of a detention basin to the east of E Sherman Dr. The proposed design would widen the existing channel bottom (approximately at elevation 628 feet) by about 100-feet. An estimated 4,800 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated. • Alternative 2C 1 considers the construction of a detention basin to the east of Stuart Rd. The proposed design incorporates a basin bottom at elevation 637 feet and weir at elevation 640.5 feet. An estimated 106,000 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated. • Alternative 2D 1 considers the construction of a detention basin at the same location as 2C 1, listed above. Except, this proposed design incorporates a basin bottom at elevation 634 feet and weir at elevation 639.8 feet. An estimated 151,000 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated. 4.3. Alternative 3: Detention Basin and Channel Improvements. Alternative 3 includes detention basin design from Alternative 2C 1 and the channel improvement Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 6 proposed in Alternative 8. The proposed channel improvement would incorporate straightening an 842-foot-long section of Cooper Creek at E Windsor Dr as well as deepening or widening the channel. An estimated 106,000 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated for the detention basin, and approximately 4,400 cubic yards is expected to be excavated from the channel improvement. In total, approximately 110,400 cubic yards of soil/rock will need to be excavated. 4.4. Alternative 5: Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications. Alternative 5 includes detention basin design from Alternative 2C 1 as well as adding or modifying the box culvert/bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. An estimated 106,000 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated for the detention basin. 4.5. Alternative 8: Channel Improvements and Bridge culvert modifications. Alternative 8 includes channel improvements such as straightening and deepening or widening an 842-feet-long section of Cooper Creek near E. Windsor Dr as well as adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. A typical section for of the completed channel improvement will incorporate 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes, resulting in approximately 4,400 cubic yards of expected soil/rock excavation. 4.6. Alternative 17: Detention Basin, Bridge culvert modifications, Channel improvements. Alternative 17 includes detention basin design from Alternative 2C1, the channel improvements from Alternative 8, as well as adding or modifying the box culvert/ bridge at Sherman Drive, Mingo Road, and/or Blagg Road to increase hydraulic capacity. An estimated 106,000 cubic yards of native soil/rock is expected to be excavated for the detention basin, and approximately 4,400 cubic yards is expected to be excavated from the channel improvement. In total, approximately 110,400 cubic yards of soil/rock will need to be excavated. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 7 5.0 Considerations 5.1. Excavation Concerns Based upon information gathered during a site visit and borings from CMJ Engineering's geotechnical report, both the sandy, silty, and shaly clay overburden material and the limestone/shale primary material are expected to be encountered at the surface and during excavation of the detention basin and channel improvements. It is expected that the excavation of denser and harder limestone or shale primary will likely incur a considerable increase to cost, and effort compared to the conventional earthwork equipment used for overburden soils. Additionally, should sands be encountered during excavation, precautions to prevent caving should be considered. Additional costs and design changes could also be later incurred in the event shale is encountered during excavation at the channel improvement and detention basin sites. When primary shales are unloaded and exposed to the surface and to weathering, significant swell/shrinkage can occur. The presence of exposed shale along the surface of the slopes or bottom at either the channel or detention basin could present significant potential erosion and heave concerns. A subsurface investigation could mitigate some uncertainties. 5.2. Earthwork Concerns Slope stability is major concern for nearly all earthen embankments, especially when subjected to various loading and drawdown conditions from inundation. Permanent slopes at the site should be as flat as practical to reduce the potential for shallow slides and erosion. Currently, the channel improvement design incorporates a 3H:1 V slope for the final channel profile with a channel depth at approximately 9 feet. The following table for maximum slope angles was recommended by CMJ Engineering for similar detention pond designs at Cooper Creek. Height(ft) Slope Horizontal : Vertical 0-3 1:1 3-6 2:1 6-9 3:1 >9 4:1 5.3. Conclusion The Project Delivery Team concluded that the BCR(benefit-to-cost ratio) for the selected project alternatives would not be sufficient to meet the threshold (BCR>1) required to justify the proposed work. Should any of the selected project alternatives be proposed or reconsidered, a Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 8 subsurface exploration program and a more detailed engineering analysis is required before final geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed detention basin and channel improvements can be made. Without sufficient subsurface sampling and testing within the immediate vicinity of the proposed detention basin and channel improvement locations, costs may vary significantly. Additionally, on-site permeability testing should be conducted at all proposed detention basin construction sites. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 Cooper Creek CAP 205 9 6.0 References • Butler D.R., Ecoregions of Texas 2022. https://texasalmanac.com/topics/environment/physical-regions-texas Accessed July 3, 2024. • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - A. 2024. Texas Ecoregions. https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/wildlife- conservation/texas-ecoregions • United States Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of Texas 2024. https://webapps.usgs.gov/txgeology/Accessed July 3, 2024. • CMJ Engineering, Inc (2008). Report 187-08-06 Geotechnical Engineering Services, Cooper Creek Detention Pond, Three Sites, Denton, Texas. Geotechnical Feasibility Report February 2025 I I US Army Corps of Engineers REAL ESTATE APPENDIX Cooper Creek Continuing Authorities Program: Section 205 Flood Risk Management Denton, Texas Updated: 10 January 2025 Prepared By: Justin Weeks Realty Specialist US Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth,TX 76102 r Real Estate Considerations/Problems in Area Cooper Creek, and much of the surrounding City of Denton, Texas, is widely developed with residential housing resulting in little available land within the study area. Over the course of the CAP 205 study, the Real Estate Division advised the team of their available resources and constraints to use on potential project lands. City representatives were informed of what actions were necessary as a Non-Federal Sponsor (NFS) and their requirement of providing Lands, Easements, Rights of Way, Relocations, and Disposal Areas (LERRD). District real estate appraisal staff performed an appraisal cost analysis to support plan formulation. Engineering Regulation ER 405-1-12 Chapter 12 requires the Real Estate Division to determine the minimum interest in real property necessary to construct, operate and maintain a USACE cost-shared civil works project. Once the minimum interest has been determined, the corresponding USACE standard estate must be used for the acquisition of said interest. Any deviation from the approved estates is considered non-standard and must be approved by the USACE Directorate of Real Estate. A discussion on the standard estates identified as required to support each alternative is included below. Evaluation of Lands for Alternatives Three primary areas were identified to support construction of the structural measures for the project. Of those, two support digging detention basins to store water in flood events, a second alternative is to arm the creek channel against further erosion and support greater flood conveyance, and the third involves culvert modifications under 2 separate bridges within the areas of the previous alternatives. There are several modifications that involve combinations of the above. District economists also evaluated non-structural alternatives of buyouts, and raising of structures within 10-, 25-, and 50- year flood events. These alternatives will be discussed further in the economics appendix. All alternatives considered by the Real Estate Division are shown in table 1, below. ALTERNATIVE PLAN DESCRIPTION 1—No Action 2A1 Detention above Sherman 2—Detention basin alone 2C1 Detention above Stuart(elev 637) 2D1 Detention above Stuart(elev 634) 3—Detention basin and channel improvements 3A1 I Detention(2c1)+channelization at Windsor Dr. 5—Detention basin and bridge culvert modifications 5A1 IDetention (2C1)and bridge improvement at Sherman Dr. 8—Channel improvements and bridge culvert modifications 8A1 lChannelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Dr. 17—Detention basin,bridge culvert modifications,channel improvements 17A1 Detention(2C1)+bridge improvement(SA1)+channelization(sA1) Table 1. Alternatives considered during feasibility stage of Cooper Creek CAP Section 205 Study. 2 1 P a g e Alternative 2A1 Alternative 2A1 involves creation of a detention pond along the existing channel within Denton County Appraisal District (DCAD) parcel number 84607. This parcel is owned in fee by the City Parks Department, no additional acquisition would be necessary. During the site visit the project delivery team identified two existing sewer lines that would require relocation through some form of combination of a 12" and 15" into one 18" line off property. The city valuated said relocation at approximately $525,000. Utility and facility relocations are responsibility of the sponsor and submittable for credit as LERRD. Figure 1. Area of impact for alternative Legend r CAD Na ra zhrnawes , 71fil COOPER CRI' - 'II P;II _.:. couuumnc un«names vrc,.. ., - - sFc*iaH xos US Army Corps IJ� , � of Engi neen' Alternatives 2C1/2D1 Alternatives 2C1 and 2D1 both utilize DCAD parcel number 39529 owned by Trans-Atlas Financial, LLC. Both require the same surface acreage but differ in the maximum volume of disposal material to be removed. Due to much of the parcel being necessary for the work to be done it was evaluated as a fee ownership take. The area for these two alternatives is shown below in figure 2. 3 1 P a g e Figure 2. Area to be acquired for alternatives 2C1 and 2D1. Legend - - vKixrcv rAAo 201 JOe UDFrzsk .a acv , b •"'.. Otln D- � . A N` • '� *Or- COOPER CREEK-OENTON TEXAS u 1 m-no nur—ES onooanu — �► �� • I .� • us Amr CDrps nyineer Alternative 8A1 Alternative 8A1 involves channelization measures to be performed upstream and downstream of E. Windsor Drive. This work would impact 21 private residences where the creek has eroded into the backyards of the homes and the city would be required to acquire a channel improvement easement over the lands. According to City plat records, the landowners on either side of the creek hold fee title to the lands to the centerline of Cooper Creek, and the city holds a drainage easement over the creek. The city provided said drainage easement and associated figures to the Real Estate Division for review. The provided easements do not meet the minimum requirements of the USACE Channel Improvement Easement and therefore the city was informed that further acquisition would be necessary. These deeds, plats and associated figures are included as Addendum 1 to this report. Alternative 8A1 also involves culvert modification under the E. Windsor Drive bridge over Cooper Creek. The bridge would be removed, the culverts would be upgraded to allow greater flow under the bridge, and the bridge would then be replaced. Bridge and other road modifications are included as public facility relocations and a duty of the sponsor as a portion of the LERRD required for the project as described in ER 1165-2-131. As such this modification was included as a relocation within the project cost estimate. 4 1 P a g e Figure 3. Area to be ac uired for alternative 8A1. Legend a I COOPER CREEK-DENTON TEXAS inaFFu"m�zos w,ocae f3'. �. PUS Army Corps IJN1 f of Enp—em' Alternative 5A1 Alternative 5A1 involves a similar bridge culvert modification within 8A1 under E. Sherman Drive, downstream from the proposed area of 2A1. This modification was also treated as a public facility relocation to be performed by the sponsor and costed in the project cost estimate. The area is shown on figure 4, below. Figure 4. Area of brid e culvert modifications required for alternative 5A1. Legend CM oa..oma.cno q,u, - L�1 / { �ICOOPER CREEK-OENTON TEXAS IT wu aan , 3 ns e4>m5°x— - US Army Cap. vS of Ergfrwen" ' 4 von,wm awa 5 Page Schedule and Real Estate Capability Assessment The Real Estate Division met with the PDT and representatives from the City of Denton (including engineering staff, Real Estate, and the Parks Department staff) to perform an acquisition capability assessment as required for a typical Real Estate Planning Report. Overall, the sponsor was deemed to be capable of performing the acquisition and any necessary relocations in accordance with P.L. 91-646 (The Uniform Relocation Act). However, the city representatives expressed unwillingness to acquire any private residences through condemnation authority which could pose a risk to project timeline and viability. Additionally, the city expressed the desire to hire an outside consultant to handle any relocations. USACE has allowed other non-federal sponsors to do so on other projects and therefore this was determined acceptable for this stage of planning. During the same meeting, the overall project acquisition schedule was discussed with emphasis on timelines and periods of performance that can be expected for typical deliverables related to the acquisition. Typical contracts for surveys, appraisals, and title work have 30 to 60-day periods; the city can close on a property in approximately 4 months from initial offer (if accepted), and the usual condemnation action takes between 1.5-2 years to complete. These estimates fall within normal for project timelines. The full capability assessment is attached as addendum 2. Real Estate Cost Study In agreement with Project Management, the Gross Appraisal typically required as part of the Real Estate Planning Report generated during a feasibility study would be unnecessarily costly and more detailed than necessary for this study. Therefore, SWF-RE appraisal staff preformed a cost study report. The study considered the required estates identified for each alternative and adjusted the valuation based on said estate. A Fee ownership was determined at 100% of the County Appraisal District (CAD) valuation (plus contingency) and an easement was reduced slightly to 90% of CAD (again, plus some contingency). The full cost study is attached as addendum 3. The results of the cost study are shown in the table 2, below. Alternative Acres needed Cost per acre Total Cost 2A1 0.82 $33,319 $24,590 2C1/2D1 15.14 $32,016 $484,715 8A1 1.84 $6.10/ft2 $439,200 Table 2, cost analysis chart for the 3 primary alternatives considered. 6 1 P a g e Prepared by: Di signed by WEEKS.JUSTIN.R WEIEKS.JUSTIN.REID.15895646 EID.1589564690 90 Date:2025.02.1107:50:29-06'00' Justin Weeks Realty Specialist Fort Worth District Reviewed by: Digitally signed y MINDIETA.DAVID. MINDIETA.DAVID.WADE.128363 WADE. Date:2025.02.13 07:44:12-06'00' David W. Mindieta Chief, Planning and Appraisal Fort Worth District 7 Page APPENDIX 1: DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND PLAT V " J THE STATE OF TEXAS 13SS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE FRESENTSs COUNTY OF DENTON j THAT WE, Nette Shultz, Susie Beyette and Callie R. Ratliff, each being a feme sole, of Denton County, 'Texas, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash to us in hand paid and-the benefits that will accrue to our property, the receipt of which is hereby acknow- ledged, do hereby GIVE AND GRANT unto the said-.City of:Denton, Texas, a Municipal Corporation, the right to' dig -a drainage ditch and perpet ually maintain an open drainage ditch :in, upon and across the follow- in described tract of land being more `g , g particularly described as fol- lows, , lows, to-wit: All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton,,-State of Texas, being out of the Hardin Carter Survey, Abst. No. 281, and being more particularly described,wi'-followss.,,.. �wd� BEGINNING at a point in the west boundary,litie of the Hardin Carter Survey, Abst. No. 281, and being the west y� b� property line of the Nette Shultz property, same being w� 659 feet north, 0 deg. 27 min. east of the northeast corner of Block F of the Brentwood Addition to the City of Denton, Texas; THENCE east from the beginning point along a 10 deg. 00 min. curve4 to the right, 56.50 feet to-a point of tangency. _ THENCE south 51 deg., 10 min. east, 85.5T'•feet for a point of curvature of a 12 deg. .00. min. curve to the left; THENCE along said 12. deg. 00 min. curve to the left, 198.06 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE south 73 deg. 56 min. east, 1,017,77 feet for a point; �• . THENCE north 15 deg. 04 min. east, 80:feet for a point; '- } THENCE north 7.3 deg. 5.6'min. west along the south boundary . line of a sewer easement 20 feet wide granted to the City of Denton, Texas, by Nette Shultz by instrument dated the 6th day of December, 1955, 1002.53 feet to a point of curvature.of a 12 deg. 00 min. curve to the right;:' THENCE along said 12 deg. 00 min. curve to the right, 198.06 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE north 51 deg. 10 min. west, 72.87 feet fora point of curvature of a 10 deg. 00 min. curve' t'o the left; TIIENCE along said 10 deg. 00 min. curve to the left, 107.51 feet for a point in the west property line of the' Shultz property and being in` the west survey line of the,-" Hardin Carter Survey; ;h wYL TIiENCE South 00, deg. 27 min. ;.Kest,. 92,89 feet to the t place of beginning. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to the City of Denton, Texas, its successors and assigns, and to its agents, officers and employees, together with the right and privilege at any and all times to enter said premises for the purpose of digging and maintaining -` 1 said drainage ditch. WITNESS OUR HANDS at Denton, Texas, this _` day of A. D., 1956. f� e to Shultz . Susiee Beyette Callie 14. Ratliff !i ! ## ! THE STATE OF TEXAS 1 jCOUNTY OF DENTON BEFORE NE, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and ':- t for said County and State, on this day personally appeared Nette Shultz, I ' Susie Beyette and Callie E. Ratliff, each being a feme sole, all well i :.. known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the forea going instrument and acknowledged to me that they each executed the same for the purposes and consideration Uerein expressed., GIVEN UNDER NY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this ..O*Y of D., 1956. f o ary Public in and for j Denton County, Texas T1iie Sute..•of Teat! ••,:nty .f!).'•(teen •1> �•A.J.BARNIS'iT,t7krk of the Ceninry i:n+rrt fa atwi fnr 4illd•Cmu1ry • - .'rtr•�.:....'e lify thut:tfu• f iw(iiiw it rnWcr-"et-"o�ff writh"-,with it,crilifivate_of uWhMlieJirin wa. i •veWJ the ..� _:.,:f,a tlf.. /LC/v..5. 1).. I ds7o, al-L4e .L.•k _ .Q �! 4-u"Je.1 she 4. «ic!d.IJZ+ 14-10 . U. lJ ��0.,at f J��_ e.'e!.• k f!. .�f., . W _...!� ...:-___..._ 1lrergrLs u) L:.•nh.0 f:nauty lrCet , pc IVtieiw.+.my kA.%I end .eal`ai nllira-Nt (lenhae- •I;rva3,the 4LIV anuf year ianl al+vver tMIit1AA•• •-<.;..a++t. i • i;. tlLe? e• ruf _Caval, IG%l:wueh f.n.r:.,f1 et.n l_ u.,T� ec_m i C. F. BALLARD & ASSOCIATES, INC. REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 218 NORTH AUSTIN PHONE (617) 387-0506 DENTON, TEXAS 76201 March 21 , 1974 REVISED FIELD NOTES : DESCRIPTION OF 11.131 ACRE SECTION FOUR AVONDALE ADDITION TO DENTON: All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the City and County of Denton Texas, owned by Builders Developers Company constituting SECTION FOUR OF AVONDALE ADDITION to said City, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northernmost corner of Lot 19, Block J, of Section Two of said Addition; THENCE following the North line of Lots 20 through 28 of said Block J, the following 5 courses and distances : (1) N. 47° 08' 30" E. 109.5 feet 11 � (2) N. 64 20 41 E. 299.29 feet, (3) N. 720 24' 34" E. 197.56 feet, (4) N. 780 11 ' 02" E. 176.64 feet, and (5) N. 870 35' 12m E. 130.21 feet to a corner on the West line of Pickwick Lane: THENCEN. 820 36' 24" E. 50.29 feet across Pickwick Lane to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block R, SECTION FOUR: THENCE N. 78° 51 ' 20" E. with the North line of Lots i and 2, a distance of 149.5 feet to a corner; THENCE S. 650 51 ' 40" E. 53.63 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot-) 3, Block R; THENCE N. 880 45' 40" E. 108.82 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 3 on the West line of Nottingham Drive; THENCE S. 780 51 ' 03" E. across Nottingham Drive 72.12 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block Q; THENCE N. 800 29" 21" E. 175.31 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block Q; THENCE S. 30 02' 30" W. with the East line of Section Four and crossing Windsor Drive 401 .35 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 6, Block P of this Section; THENCE N. 85° 32' 50" W. 125.04 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 6 on the East line of Nottingham Drive; THENCE S. 860 42' 24" W. across Nottingham Drive 60.37 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 20, Block H of this Section; Avondale A-126-0 1974 pg. 2. of F.N. to SECTION FOUR Avondale Addition THENCE Westerly with the South lines of Lots 8 through 18, and 20 the following 6 courses and distances: (1) N. 850 40' 27" W. 347.45 feet, (2) S. 85° 04' W. 171 .86 feet (3) S. 79° 32' 10" W. 102.0 feet (4) S. 73° 38' 50" W. 102.02 feet (5) S. 67° 50' 20" W. 102.02 feet and (6) S. 60° 44' W. 232.9 feet to the Southernmost corner of Lot 8, herein, same being the Easternmost corner of Lot 7, Block 8, Section Two; THENCE N. 420 53' 06" W. 122.5 feet to the Westernmost corner of Lot 8 on the Southerly line of Windsor Drive; THENCE N. 370 48' 31" W. across Windsor Drive 80.02 feet to the Southernmost corner of Lot 20; THENCE N. 420 59' 11" W. 127.79 feet to the place of beginning, containing in all 11.131 acres of land. TILL STATE OF TEXAS X I KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: COUNTY OF DENTON X 1�.`�5 0 WHEREAS, on the 15th day of Januarv, 1964, Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber ( y executed, acknowledged and delivered to Builders Development Company, -poration, a certain Deed, conveying a 153.86 acre tract of land, out of ;to John Carter, Hardin Carter, W. Pogue and S. McCracken Surveys, said Deed being recorded in Volume 503, Page 64D of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; and WHEREAS, Builders Development Company, being the sole owner of said ,+:rty, desires to plat a portion of said property into an Addition to be vtl as Avondale Addition, Section Four, to the City of Denton, Texas. NOW, T'FIERErORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Builders Development Company, a corporation, acting herein, by and through its undersigned officers, does hereby make and adopt the plat this day filed of the Hereinafter described property, to be known as Avondale Addition, Section Four, to the City of Denton, Texas, said property platted being more particularly described as follows: BR(:TNWTNr Ft rY+�• Norther:-,.,1-at- corner of Lot 19, Block J, of Avondale Addition, Section Two, THENCE following the North line of Lots 20 through 28 of said Block J, the following 5 courses and distances: (1) N. 47° 05' 30" E. 109.5 feet, (2) N. 640 20' 41" E. 299.29 feet, (3) N. 720 24' 34" E. 197.56, feet, (4) N. 78" .11.' 02" E. 176.64 feet, and (5) N. 87" 35' 12" E. 130.21 feet, to a corner on the West line of Pickwick Lane; THENCE N. 820 36' 24" E. 50.29 feet across Pickwick Lane to the Northwest. corner of Lot 1, Block R, of this Section; THENCE N. 78° 51' 20" E. with the North line of Lots 1 and 2, a distance of 149.5 feet- to a corner; THENCE S. 650 51' 40" E. 53,63 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Block R of this Section; THENCE, N. 880 45' 40" E. 108.82 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 3, on the West line of Nottingham Drive; THENCE S. 78° 51' 03" E. across Nottingham Drive 72.12 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block Q of this Section; THENCE N. 800 29' 21" E. 175.31 feet-, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block Q of this Section; T11J'.NCEI S. 30 02' 30" W. with thc east l t.n.e of Sc,cLi on YOM: and crossing Windr-oi. Drive 397.53 feet to the Soutih(,iAsL corner of Lot (1, Block 1' of this Seet..ion; Avondale A-126-00 1A64 THENCE N. 86° 57' 30" W. 125.0 feet to the SOULhweSt corner of Lot 6, on the; East line of Nottingham Drive, ME NCE S. 86" 00' 52" W. across Nottingham Drivc 60.45 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 20, Block 11, of this Section; Tl1ENCE Westerly with the South lines of Lots 8 through 18, and 20, the following 6 courses and distances: (1) N. 850 IV 27" W. 347.45 feet, (2) S. 85° 04' W. 171.86 feet, (3) S. 79° 32' 10" W. 102.0 feet, (4) S. 730 38' 50" W. 102.02 feet, (5) S. 670 50' 20" W. 102.02 feet and (6) S. 60' 44' W. 232.9 feet to the Southernmost corner of Lot 8, Block H, herein, same being the Eata:ernmost corner of Lot 7, Block H. Avondale Addition, Section Two; THENCE N. 42" 53' 06" W. 122.5 feet to the Westernmost corner ! of Lot 8, Block li, on the Southerly line of Windsor Drive; THENCE N. 370 48' 31" W. across Windsor Drive 80.02 feet to the Southernmost corner of Lot 20, Block J, of this Section; 'ME NCE N. 42° 59' 11f1 W. 127.79 feet to the, place of beginning, containing in all 11.125 acre of land, including all easements as shown on the official plat of Section Four of Avondale Addition, together with adjacent easements shown on said plat which may be necessary for the installation of utilities in this Section. The undersigned does hereby further dedicate the streets, as shown on said plat, to the public use forever. The undersigned owner hereby acknowledges the requirement of the completion of all water distribution and sewage collection systems, and all street, curb and gutter, and drainage improvements, at its expense and guarantees the per- formance of same. The undersigned owner further acknowledges that this plat is approved subject to all platting ordinances, rules, regulations, and resolutions of the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. The undersigned does further hereby reserve for utility and drainage pur- poses, the easements, as shown on said plat of said Addition, together with the right of ingress and egress on said easements for the purpose of the erection, construction, repairs and maintenance of such drainage and utility- facilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Builders Development Company has caused its name to be set hereto and its seal to be affixeds the 13th day of September, 1973. BUILDERS DEV1•JAMI.NT COMPANY By Prod dent. I w GCS t'S� TILE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALIAS X BEFORE ;;� , the undersigned authority, a Notary Public it; and for said Coui.�t_-y and State, on this day personally appeared J. C. Galbraith, Jr.. , President of Builders Develop- ment Company, known to me to be the person andl officer whose name is sub- scribed to the fore:goI.ng i.nstrumoni., and acknowledged to me that the. same was the act of said Builders Development. Company, a corporation, and that ..„ he executed the saute as thc-' act of such corporation for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, .and in'the capacity therein stated. 1973.GIVEN UNDER MY BAND AND SEAL Or OFFICE, this 13th day of September, 1c !fir > f i.'f t Ar' rLLL wa irrt; Notary Public n and for Dallas County, gyp,.• % s Texas. A 0— f . ti v H'JN 1 11 0 ri I: �4I L i \ --,- e Al L2 A \,P U.4 L4, LL W-4; .-1 Pf Pf 14 o 1 5 AN .1 yy C. p CIff" ^ ^� - � h — D � �.� sx � �jx � N_ ti p k ? w N . i _ a W < J " ^opy, Q LU E o W V O o o d �O tL a� Lo ® _ v o u w 1 \ °•� �btu''G\> � � . s�� j� o.=I' � + M e n S �, 34:,'^.— ♦s °\a \� .�,', `9+` n / /� OaLc--� - //- 91. 1= � �I .,,, • iq„ 'off -'�I= .I°.• e S'`' � � � / / ��/ W I °a '�N,� °`i s,�a �_�e_i-^,.�� . fix.°s •,,� •I/ :i l /� L —j I 43%'t N . /* ..— -- —'�itiV'yY_ °F om_of��.Yi v r�vvo nssr si ii - I"--. ---' � "^ F e ` � / �• / m e a 0 t O t \ ' 006 �._._._._._,_ IL ON I �'N O O V U O \y O -._._._i_.�._ 1 ��_ / \ ) M/H L b 0 n tom,{ O"^6 4. o. n Doc• � I3 �y/^ � � o :9i W 6I:.� c .DC, E"4b•'� IN ��o - _- - M PV to \ � �ri 'SSE $G'•1 / ¢ I� Ti DE.9 aL'EE' I 96'p51 b101 i 3.L5o.L'N �� 051 nl I I '3..0!.Pb•d'ry c ":6,• N N �_ W I W ! m3 I t T c N I zz LG55! 1 36D,9-N- �R A� ♦♦ DD'E£I 1rl m 05.Fry O[!1 1 9 3.P1 LO eL'N 4. 3.Of.GZ,S-N M rtl E£.0-N BL'Sfil ' n IT M DE,Da.D'n ° M..DI I n c �5�m NI1 pI S �1c 'M OI.95.5'N 1' 5fi1 Imp 1I a 1Y G51� {' .MAGOV..iHo .M.A1.L5.OI.N �_ 1• D-1�,\� N.OI AV .� / a?`\zo c �• hems ro°z�,°: °° ICI m � ,� �\e .tµ.3':'`as\\\f °6\ s —\`+'�S; N \ i� aptipO° O \ 'h.d '`•\• �'I a m \�eo w \ ��•;�\ �\ a,•iy4.�o\s6 H \ � �,�. \Moa'�n �.,�• .A `o •b�_�� °. bq°°g'G y\ �� o \e. �°d l m n 8D99! ! 2 l S.0$.ID.B GO °f P°'oryM1° \4 °6}� COM50 \aO l LS 3.,0/,sLl ! \ V Ile 1�N N 9.a0 M•n `� I V .l, 3..OL,b. v^ 1// O Q W •• N O O O d N N 0 0 �• \\9< ° b V\ "\ / 946, U \ o o c o�i of o o ^ \ 4 !�'8� \�r'e 7 ^/ 3.ob.t x 51 al Lo LU LU W u T e / w Q ~ / {W. O 1 \ �a N C Q Lu tl �9N'•-°M i11�Nv1 S1NN 1. � h Ao4 O T ^ Q p V 0 0 \V/ luiO 1'd NLJ \ \\� h u h • r fl! W ~ ( tr m Y � ems• }'� Q tf 6 •N 1N— 3/Y77y1 SN/ C ` w. do W NO/1/Opy�ld ND O S Q (q C4 _— C9L64 r 1N3W3SV32f 91y1S�N3 �� ' Q � M 'C OC EO aC y,,49'L01 W � l a I ; c �'• s ,,(�� .'� •O a • W. 1� z V i 31 ;�. r'� J ,nw .on9 .ont 9�ci• M.a4ao.9i;iYVHONIl10N ,►zw .0-001 I -0 so T N.,, r � • •_ ei N o _ N I 1n - .0'001 la a- a.'•' Pill w m o I• 'P n tie � i SR , N j S�1 O'0E1 PWI 111999 SSSiii�� Id ♦ ,Q e d x <f 0\dui ' !e zz law tit w `wIRV �� pl'G9 99'•S � 1�9.�!' 1�3 F W �p N W W14 z 'z o b � ~ y Ri N _ N.101+Y 1ld la 2 Vi N.O m 2 <h Z C � O=-itG N W Y�\ •w. N 1!!. 1 0 11 •'� 1 12!� �'ty1 N 41 p1 1 z �. d w. 1+Mc \ 40 NI!°, 01 r{ M �OY \.A R e ;'•\O N � 4t �\ o ttNglY•p0 � � � m �� t�'• EG1�' Qe O $�\aN �� Y J4 '^ • to n rn rmi nl m n m i N 1 N N i O. •s.OF.\ B e - N.N �p °•e0ui 11eN a Or W N , .rN��, "DNA M1ry06'+yT.,\ O N Oddlj'p Qm�m♦ "tu0 1�O C m O A A P m W 4Y : \',VS C` , +•"4°�O ly m � •N tI �C ��1' 00• �0 >V N O, U qp NU OOIU. (QINO \\ 02 O rh -mN OIp �rN •r N p N N ♦ N s1, \ N _ s � \ a,S ael a U 4 IS W13 n A n - t0 � O Q n - ♦ O W W Ll _B ON fNJIY 7_.- 7_ylgNr y � a � x AV7i1�Orld OOOMN1dON .• ~ Q = n p 4zW � - m h Z 01 "' I - - n I _ Q ui a �j QQ 66'0r I Gr� '� Dw�tiMl ► 1 __ _ of JO ai S > Q cou 0 oe w - u v ...ov,zo.s cl MVH9NI110N A l ►f i ,o 000 I i _ i h •° W .o. � N . m N_ N •.i. q ��k+� wl ► q ',''eq � I� •. aso r 3 r •w ppp�pp r IN .6000 00 • 0 - =♦1 .- D � G9 CVi 4 '^-I a II - ,. A � N �I ] WWN3O OYN U 1 NIOe QO e9 A Q i : rc �A= Y 1 c ! l±Jf ; gIto u1 2 2 a JI u a m J�V e w ✓°j1 "��e W' n�a a •1 .w (� ro 111Zl,! IJ N 1M r•rt 1t It � '• o• ~` T i �1 Yj eo•s o •1 w .,d 'w y 11 �N��q �'ry, IV a N w b' � orw 1 •O g Ise J ^� r N1 �• +f^�G tit •'��O N Mr 1 rtep0• ° ° -t J �• rN -• a r 5 d L�•D M• �6 O' V1 H yy�� • • n OI- p�p O il ��-�-.Z� :�,t`�t g+��rp ��ty �• 4 oil .1 ID CISa r n y rn .♦�nm 1n •_ ca N IP 'p,'♦ c G ~ .0"�3N OO 7SQQ �P'O QQN - v `+• � r °♦ r ,titi' ob a -� � '�: mo i "' '''•n%•$� ,�rSNa �♦ y A� i.• rt i•�m N P '�'I� v A ♦ M1i-N M Y `♦ •. ,� L u.a �1pn 01 Mai O r- `J pp ,J. •Np•m mVi m P •�'n� '� pVp1II�N�A ` ! • / • NI M1 O�i VA M1 A n♦N 0MD - N •O•, . M1 � A � .Y I�i f, �N♦ �NM1G NN yV'♦ N JJ ti �• i m �=zx "l j giG a K a ' Z •Q�„~ W W Q � h La ag = z g B '0V JN.M77r1SN/ j !4 ND/1/oor 400*N1dfON ¢ ° ¢ Q> J O I i r k j d H m = Wcr m I �,71 W NQ = ¢ V • 2 V ,06 N Via' i i �-- N t $----"VH9NIllON r1y0 ,� n �0�� NI f � ��RW O �N�¢Ol •p'�[�{y� •• y- � �.�tsW ip O �`d '" d• „Ogpoo M I I m -Q W jt {I'OCI oasq �' •'.Y?' S_- °oj pr yyy3��°'� ru W 'R�Oy . ,Y lnlH I . z�WwS O ~ai �;�b �� p : •�� O q•g � _ ��i=a' °± 's k >oZ�• ii V l' P Wo r o 09im l p �-W Ifl t U E{'OL t►N� I Q o N�la�� nl + 1 �p Q 2tlo� LL Ft� �5Ik�IF 1b CRIS 01 1 9 gYX r7 y1�1M�� res s '� c 000 :� ffi =" �H "' lY 7E �+ 21: o Fooy JNw pJ• pp r� � •N b• s ,ov y� qg� zs ". 02 °. a N u w��izui�.-^!'°W .s7 W W • } t!1 1 f q2;'? J J J ) . �X ob it IMtPye.,� �i. Y� . ��vv yyr y �r Wy3iayy�� I a►%0 1 s I mod, i " os °g ` 6 p ueOMIllON e\ Y flN \ � �r '1 ♦ /� 171 �` O ,O NOIN ail hA O - Yj fla E N � NNYI '�0m� 10 f N�r Nn0 & y •�� 1 • A t�o� W tC i a �...r7 46 Ilpyy N n o T h$2, to W.001 1{ oil yo \ 'J 4` \` dO:h dthJ Vrh a:hJ \ y - 1 C 7 I w U I V I � I II I I N 4 I d ti ^ I 01 r 1 I ^ =r Y1 . r > a _ • W r � O ' • � O u �")0. 21 oil pn [r a•I I i � 1 � J W I M1110M o� . j W. • N 1 024 > Q I I > W W > w 'V N i W e- s IF " .c E` @'3 ZA 9 • � � ii^Ryi r�� .0 `-ie �3%E o■_ ;lip F'SE � o �u °D _r--25 .moo._ < �a dl R' 0 s - __ __-- U3 cr U '• (MOM 081 3AWO WV7NLL10N ! 8 Z R I 2G OGI M 1r.-O'S _ M 140 J Z G p 3 0 � m z I � k W y�. ._._..•. .. •-- ._ .,._..,. . .tea: - .,. - _,_.... _..'..--- .___ -. . - _.. .._,.._ .•,.ay,:'r�.._� ..! �. 6153 THE STATE OF TEXAS MOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS; ��7 COUNTY OF DENTON THAT WE, Nette Shultz, Susie Beyette and Callie R. Ratliff, each being a feme sole, of Denton County, Texas, for and in con- sideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash to us in hand _ paid and the benefits that will accrue to our property, the receipt It of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby GIVE AND GRANT unto the f t � said City of Denton, Texas, a Municipal Corporation, the 'right to dig a drainage ditch and perpetually maintain an open drainage ditch in, upon and across the following described tract of land, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State of Texas, being out of the Hardin Carter Survey, Abstract No. 281, and being more particularly described- as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the most Southerly North line of ; a certain 279.33 acre tract of land conveyed by Laura E. Poe to Nette Shultz, that is South 86050.' West of an inner Ell corner of said 279.83 acre tract, said point I also being the Southwest corner of Lot No. 1, in Block No. 7 of Norchester Subdivision; THENCE South 8 deg. 40 min. East from said beginning E• point, 195.9 feet for a point for a corner; THENCE South 81 deg. 20 min. West 25 feet for a point for a corner; THENCE North 3 deg. 40 min. West 199.5 feet for a point for a corner; THENCE North 86 deg. 50 min. East 25.50 feet to the place k of beginning. i - t The easement herein granted being a strip of land 25 feet wide. . 4 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same perpetually to the City of Denton, - t Texas, its successors and assigns, and to its agents, officers and ; - employees, together with the right and privilege at any and all , times to enter said premises for the purpose of digging and main- taining said drainage ditch. j. WITNESS OUR HANDS at Dentoa, 'Texas, this day of A.D., 1957. Nette Silultz Ily sus le Eeye e M171 APPENDIX 2 ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR'S REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION CAPABILITY COOPER CREEK SECTION 205 PROJECT NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I. Legal Authority: a. Does the sponsor have legal authority to acquire and hold title to real property for project purposes? Yes b. Does the sponsor have the power of eminent domain for this project? yes c. Does the sponsor have "quick-take" authority for this project? There is no "quick-take" authority under Texas law, however, possession of property can be obtained without undue delay. d. Are any of the lands/interests in land required for the project located outside the sponsor's political boundary? No. everything in city limits 4V N e. Are any of the lands/interests in land required for the project owned by an entity whose property the sponsor cannot condemn? Two roads identified as potentially within the project area (Sherman Dr. And Locust Dr.) are both owned by TxDOT. II. Human Resource Requirements: a. Will the sponsor's in-house staff require training to become familiar with the real estate requirements of Federal projects including the Uniform Act? No. b. If the answer to Il.a. is "yes," has a reasonable plan been developed to provide such training? -will hire consultant c. Does the sponsor's in-house staff have sufficient real estate acquisition experience to meet its responsibilities for the project? yes d. Is the sponsor's projected in-house staffing level sufficient considering its other work load, if any, and the project schedule? e. Can the sponsor obtain contractor support, if required in a timely fashion? -Planning to utilize contractor support for relocations f. Will the sponsor likely request USACE assistance in acquiring real estate? -No, not likely. III. Other Project Variables: a. Will the sponsor's staff be located within reasonable proximity to the project site? -yes, all lands are within the City limits of Denton. b. Has the sponsor approved the project/real estate schedule/milestones? -Full schedule was not prepared. City officials provided typical periods of performance for RE acquisition tasks. 30-60 days for survey/appraisal/title, 3-4 months to acquire from offer to closing, condemnation typically requires 1 .5-2 years. IV. Overall Assessment: a. Has the sponsor performed satisfactorily on other USACE projects? The City was the NFS on a previous section 205 planning report from the 80's as well as ongoing coordination with USACE at Lewisville Lake. b. With regard to this project, the sponsor is anticipated to be: Capable V. Coordination: a. Has this assessment been coordinated with the sponsor? - yes, assessment was performed via teleconference on Thursday, 26 September 2024. b. Does the sponsor concur with this assessment? Concur. 1. TITLE PAGE REAL ESTATE COST STUDY COOPER CREEK SECTION 20S FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT DENTON (DENTON COUNTY) TEXAS CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR - CITY OF DENTON Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District Programs and Project Planning Division Prepared By: Clay Miller, Review Appraiser U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District Real Estate Division Effective Date: November 6, 2024 Date of Report: November 6, 2024 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TITLE PAGE................................................................................................................................................1 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................2 3. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................2 4. PURPOSE OF COST ESTIMATE...................................................................................................................4 5. INTENDED USE OF COST ESTMATE/INTENDED USER................................................................................4 6. PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................4 7. ESTATES OR PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................................................................................................4 8. SCOPE OF THE COST ESTIMATE.................................................................................................................5 9. DEFINITIONS..............................................................................................................................................5 10. LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................................6 11. EXISTING EASEMENTS OR INTERESTS.....................................................................................................7 12. AREA, CITY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA...............................................................................................8 13. PROPERTY DATA......................................................................................................................................8 14. HIGHEST AND BEST USE:.........................................................................................................................9 15. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE RULES ..................................................................................9 16. VALUATION PROCESS..............................................................................................................................9 17. CORRELATION/RECONCILIATION..........................................................................................................11 18. DAMAGES/SEVERANCES.......................................................................................................................12 20. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................13 22. AERIAL MAPS.........................................................................................................................................14 3. SUMMARY As requested by the client, the estimated project real estate cost was developed for each of the following three (3) alternatives. 1. Alternative 2A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on City Owned Tract PID 34607 • 0.82 acres $24,590 2. Alternative 2C1/2D1 — Fee Simple acquisition of Privately Owned Tract PID 39529 • 15.14 acres $484,715 3. Alternative 8A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on 21 Privately Owned Tracts in Avondale Subdivision • 1.837 acres $439,200 2 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas Damages/Severance Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Minerals Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Relocation (PL 91-646) Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Other Costs Scenario 1 $24,590 X 20% _ $4,918 Scenario 2 $484,715 X 20% = $96,943 Scenario 3 $439,200 X 20% = $87,840 Total Estimate by Scenario: Scenario 1 $29,508 Land value $24,590 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $4,918 Scenario 2 $581,658 Land value $484,715 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $96,943 Scenario 3 $527,040 Land value $439,200 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $87,840 3 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 4. PURPOSE OF COST ESTIMATE The purpose of this cost estimate is to develop for internal pre-planning purposes and project feasibility purposes, an estimate of market value for each of the following three (3) scenarios: 1. Alternative 2A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on City Owned Tract Out of PID 34607 — 0.82 acres. 2. Alternative 2C1/2D1 — Fee Simple acquisition of Privately Owned Tract PID 39529 — 15.14 acres. 3. Alternative 8A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on 21 Privately Owned Tracts in Avondale Subdivision — 80,000 square feet or 1.84 acres. Project aerial maps are attached. The Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) and Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to participate in the development and implementation of structural and non-structural flood damage reduction projects. 5. INTENDED USE OF COST ESTMATE/INTENDED USER The values generated for each of the three (3) scenarios will be used by the intended user (authorized personnel of the U.S. Corps of Engineers) for planning, development of a project budget, and internal decision making. 6. PROJECT SUMMARY A Project Management Plan (PMP) was not provided to the individual providing this cost estimate. The principal objective of the project is flood damage reduction in the urbanized Cooper Creek basin. Alternative 2A1 is a 0.82-acre detention basin on city owned land. Alternative 2C1/2D1 is a detention basin on a 15.14-acre tract that are currently privately owned. Alternative 8A1 is a 1.84-acre (1,000' x 80') channelization improvement easement that would travel across a pre-existing drainage easement situated at the rear of 21 privately owned single family lots that are situated along the current course of Cooper Creek. 7. ESTATES OR PROPERTY RIGHTS The property rights analyzed are fee simple and channel improvement easement. 4 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 8. SCOPE OF THE COST ESTIMATE This cost estimate is a pre-planning level estimate of the market value (fee simple or easement) of properties identified as being necessary for the successful completion of the project, taken "in gross", for the purposes for planning, development of a project budget, and internal decision making. This real estate cost study was requested by the Programs and Project Management Division of the Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This cost study is not considered to be a USPAP compliant appraisal report. The person preparing this cost estimate is familiar with the area but did not visit the subject project for the purpose of preparing this estimate. A detailed highest and best use analysis was not completed. Zoning was confirmed to provide a basis for highest and best use and Denton Central Appraisal District (DCAD) records were researched to provide a basis for real estate cost data. Individual market sales transactions were not researched or relied upon for this estimate. The format and contents of this report are styled in conformity with guidance received from USACE. A gross appraisal compliant with ER 405-1-04 and reviewed and accepted for use by a Government Review Appraiser will be required to proceed with the project. 9. DEFINITIONS Fee Simple: ER 405-1-11 defines fee simple as: "The fee simple title to the land described, subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines." Easement: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022 defines an easement as: "The right to use anthers land for a stated purpose." Channel Improvement Easement: ER 405-1-11 defines a channel improvement easement as: A perpetual and assignable right and easement to construct, operate, and maintain channel improvement works on, over and across (the land described in Schedule A) (Tracts Nos and ) for the purposes as authorized by the Act of Congress approved , including the right to clear, cut, fell, remove and dispose of any and all timber, trees, underbrush, buildings, improvements and/or other obstructions therefrom; to excavate, dredge, cut away, and remove any or all of said land and to place thereon dredge or spoil material; and for such other purposes as may be required in connection with said work of improvement; reserving, however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired;subject, however, to existing easements far public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines. 5 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas Market Value: The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, The Appraisal Foundation, 2016 Edition, Section 1, Paragraph 1.2.4, Page 10, defines market value as: "Market value is the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of value, after a reasonable exposure time on the open competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property." Neighborhood: The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Seventh Edition, Appraisal Institute, Chicago, Illinois, 2022 defines a neighborhood as: 1. A group of complementary land uses; a congruous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, and business enterprises. 2. A developed residential superpad within a master planned community usually having a distinguishing name and entrance. 3. A geographic area around a property that influences that property, I.e. its environment. Highest and Best Use: The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, The Appraisal Foundation, 2016 Edition, Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.1, Page 102, defines highest and best use as: "The highest and most profitable use for which the property is adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future." 10. LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS This real estate cost estimate is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions. • The estimator assumes no responsibility for matters legal in character nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded, and the property is appraised as though free and clear under responsible and competent management. • The estimator made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. • The estimator believes to be reliable the information identified in this report as furnished by others but assumes no responsibility for its accuracy. • Possession of the report, or copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be reproduced in whole or in part, in any manner, by any person, without the prior written consent of the author. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent of the author, particularly as to value conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or the Governmental body with which the estimator is connected. 6 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas • The estimator is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this cost estimate, with reference to the property in question, unless arrangements have been previously made, therefore. • The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other estimate and are invalid if so used. • Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material used in the construction, such as the presence of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos, the existence of radon gas, which may or may not be present on the property, and/or underground petroleum storage tanks, was not observed by the estimator. The estimator has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property and is not qualified to detect such substances. The existence of any such hazardous construction materials or potentially hazardous waste material may have an effect on the value of the property. If such is present, the value of the property may be adversely affected. • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. The estimator has not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since the estimator has no direct evidence relating to this issue, I did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property. • This report is prepared solely for the internal use of authorized personnel of USACE, by the estimator in consideration of payment of a sum of money in the form of salary paid by USACE and would not be prepared in the absence of such consideration. This report is prepared solely for USACE and may not be relied upon by any other person, entity, or organization for any other purpose whatsoever. • In accordance with ER 405-1-04 (dated 29-3an-2016), 4-2, c. Exemptions from USPAP and UASFLA, several USACE valuation assignments require quick and sometime superficial estates of value, primarily for internal planning purposes and are not under the purview of 49 C.F.R. Part 24 for acquisition appraisals. USACE valuation assignments that fall within this exemption category include preliminary estimates of value, cost estimates, feasibility reports, gross appraisals, and informal value estimates. 11. EXISTING EASEMENTS OR INTERESTS The properties currently identified on the project aerial maps and publicly and privately owned. Although not identified at the current level of design, it is anticipated that easements for power lines, roads, utilities, pipelines, and/or drainage may exist. An Attorney's Opinion of Compensability would be necessary from the USACE Office of Counsel to address any utilities that are impacted. PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 12. AREA, CITY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The City of Denton is the county seat of Denton County and located in north Texas, approximately 30 miles north of both Dallas and Fort Worth. It is included in the Dallas- Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The city is located on IH-35 which traverses the United States from Mexico to Canada. The 2020 U.S. Census indicates that Denton had a population of 139,869. This is a 23.4% increase over the 2010 Census population of 113,383. Denton is a home-rule city with a council-manager form of government. Residents elect a mayor, four single-member district council members, and two at-large members. The Denton City Council appoints the city manager. Council terms are for two years, with a maximum of three consecutive terms, and elections are held each year in May. The city is served by police, fire, Denton Municipal Electric (owned by the city), water, wastewater and sanitary treatment facilities, natural gas (Oncor), and telephone. K-12 education is provided by Denton ISD. The University of North Texas and Texas Women's University are also located in Denton. 13. PROPERTY DATA The subject property is located in the City of Denton, Texas and in general, follows the course of Cooper Creek. The larger neighborhood impacted by the project is generally described as being bounded by Loop 288 to the north and the east, U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) to the south, and U.S. Highway 77 (N Elm Street) to the west. Site: Alternative 2A1 is a proposed 0.82 are detention pond located on Tax Parcel 34607, which is owned by the City of Denton and currently used as a public park. Parcel 34607 currently has PF (Public Facilities) zoning per City of Denton Development Services. • Parcel 34607 is described as A0274A 1. CARTER, TR 22, 6.07 ACRES, OLD DCAD TR 1A Alternative 2C1/2D1 is a detention pond on a 15.14-acre tract, Tax Parcel 39529, which is privately owned. This tract is currently vacant and is zoned PD with an R-7 residential overlay per City of Denton Development Services. • Parcel 39529 is described as A0186A BBB & CRR, TR 23,261 15.1395 ACRES Alternative 8A1 is a 1.84-acre (1,000' x 80') channelization improvement easement that would travel across a pre-existing drainage easement situated at the rear of 21 privately- owned single-family lots that are situated along the current course of Cooper Creek. These lots are part of the Avondale subdivision and most of the lots are currently improved with single family dwellings. 8 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas The area sought for the project is not improved as it is assumed to encompass the areas of the lots located in the pre-existing drainage easement. Lots impacted are as follows: • Lots 7 thru 10 and Lot 23, Block A, Avondale 1, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas • Lots 8 thru 11, Block C, Avondale 1, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas • Lots 5 thru 12, Block F, Avondale 2, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas • Lots 1 thru 3, Block G, Avondale 2, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas • Lots 4 and 5, Block G, Avondale 3, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas Improvements: Based on a review of aerial photographs, the different land areas required for the project are currently vacant. Ownership Data: Alternative 2A1, Parcel 34607 is owned by the City of Denton. Alternative 2C1/2D1 Parcel 39529 is owned by Trans-Atlas Financial Inc. Alternative 8A1 is owned by multiple private owners. Environmental/Historical Issues: An ESA has not been provided to the individual preparing this cost estimate. 14. HIGHEST AND BEST USE: For Alternative 2A1, the highest and best use is continued use as a public park. For Alternative 2C1/2D1, the highest and best use is residential development. For Alternative 8A1, the highest and best use is single family residential use. 15. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE RULES The NFS (City of Denton) will acquire the property under State rules. Texas rules of valuation differ from Federal rules primarily in that state rules do not allow enhancements to offset the value of the part taken. In the state rule, such benefits may offset damages only. This real estate cost estimate has been prepared under this assumption. 16. VALUATION PROCESS Normally, a discussion of the 3 approaches to value (cost, income, and sales) are included and reconciliation results is 1 or all approaches being identified as applicable. Given that the properties are vacant, cost and income approaches are not applicable. 9 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas For this cost estimate, the client requested the development of market value estimate for each of the following three (3) scenarios: • Alternative 1 — what is the estimated value of a channelization improvement easement to be located on 0.82 acres of public owned land in Tax Parcel 34607 • Alternative 2 — what is the estimated value of a fee simple acquisition of 15.14 acres of privately owned land (Tax Parcel 39529) • Alternative 3 — what is the estimated value of a 1,000' x 80' (80,000 sf or 1.84 acres) channelization improvement easement to be located out of 21 tax parcels with a pre-existing drainage easement in the Avondale subdivision. Consistency is needed in order to address this request. As such, 2024 assessed land values from the Denton Central Appraisal District records will be used. The use of tax records in the development of a cost estimate is allowed in ER 405-1-04, Paragraph 4-21 Gross Appraisal (a)(1) which states: "Gross appraisals shall be as complete and descriptive as possible, but there is no requirement for owner contact, and the appraiser may rely on tax records, cursory inspections, or other suitable information for descriptions of improvements, as detailed inspections may not be practical. " Alternative 2A1: This scenario requires a 0.82-acre channelization improvement easement of a 6.07-acre tract owed by the City of Denton. The 2024 DCAD assessed land value is $202,248 for 6.07 acres, or $33,319 per acre. In this estimator's opinion the limitations placed on the use of the property by a perpetual channelization improvement easement will restrict 90% of the usability. Therefore, for Alternative 2A1, the channelization easement has been valued at 90% of the assessed unit value of the property. 0.82 Acres X $33,319/Acre X 90% _ $24,589.42 Say $24,590® Alternative 2C1/2D1: This scenario requires the fee simple acquisition of a 15.14-acre property that is privately owned. The subject property is identified as DCAD Tax Parcel 39529. The 2024 DCAD assessed land value is $484,715 for 15.14 acres, or $32,016 per acre. Therefore, for Alternative 2C1/2D1, the total fee acquisition has been valued at 1000% of the assessed value of the property. $484,715 10 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate-Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas Alternative 8A1: This scenario requires an 80,000 square foot of 1.84-acre channelization improvement easement of 21 privately-owned single-family parcels in the Avondale subdivision. The 2024 DCAD assessed land values for the 21 parcels have bene summarized in the chart below. Parcel Legal Lot Size(SF) Land Imps Total Land$/SF 23403 AVONDALE 1 BLK A LOT 7 12,516 $93,446 $256,554 $350,000 $7.47 23414 AVONDALE 1 BLK A LOT 8 12,000 $92,434 $315,670 $408,104 $7.70 23417 AVONDALE 1 BLK A LOT 9 13,385 $95,152 $171,514 $266,666 $7.11 23431 AVONDALE 1 BLK A LOT 10 16,195 $100,666 $227,334 $328,000 $6.22 23454 AVONDALE 1 BLK A LOT 23 18,782 $105,743 $147,315 $253,058 $5.63 23485 AVONDALE 1 BLK C LOT 11 14,700 $97,733 $225,261 $322,994 $6.65 23488 AVONDALE 1 BLK C LOT 10 13,600 $95,574 $235,811 $331,385 $7.03 23070 AVONDALE 1 BLK C LOT 9 20,790 $109,684 $205,396 1 $315,080 $5.28 R 083 AVONDALE 1 BLK C LOT 8 18,500 $105,190 $281,769 $386,959 $5.69 673 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 5 16,615 $101,491 $244,333 $345,824 $6.11 676 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 6 13,650 $66,014 $245,876 $311,890 $4.84 679 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 7(W 1/2) 6,343 $34,357 $1,776 $36,133 $5.42 682 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 7(E 1/2),8 19,994 $108,122 $278,496 $386,618 $5.41 23691 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 9(ALL),10(W 1/2) 13,650 $95,672 $185,946 $281,618 $7.01 23696 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 10(E1/2),11 13,650 $95,672 $133,876 $229,548 1 $7.01 23703 AVONDALE 2 BLK F LOT 12 16,109 $100,498 $263,502 $364,000 $6.24 23148 AVONDALE 2 BLK G LOT 1 17,829 $103,873 $218,811 $322,684 $5.83 22638 AVONDALE 2 BLK G LOT 2 13,832 $96,029 $236,854 $332,883 $6.94 22644 AVONDALE 2 BLK G LOT 3 9,375 $50,044 $267,132 $317,176 $5.34 22648 AVONDALE 3 BLK G LOT 4 16,380 $10,103 $0 $10,103 $0.62 23004 AVONDALE 3 BLK G LOT 5 1 16,40 1 $68,820 1 $251,207 1 $320,027 1 $4.18 The assessed land values range from $0.62/SF to $7.70/SF, with a mean value of $5.89/SF and a median value of $6.11/SF. If the highest and lowest indicator are removed, then the mean is $6.07/SF and the mean is $6.11/SF. A single unit land value of $6.10/SF has been selected as representative of the assessed unit value of the 21 individual tax parcels. In this estimator's opinion the limitations placed on the use of the property by a perpetual channelization improvement easement will restrict 90% of the usability. Therefore, for Alternative 8A1, the channelization easement has been valued at 90% of the assessed unit value of the property. 80,000 SF X $6.10/SF X 90% = $439,200 17. CORRELATION/RECONCILIATION • Alternative 2A1 90% of $33,319 per acre • Alternative 2C1/2D1 $32,016 per acre • Alternative 8A1 90% of $6.10 per square foot 11 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 18. DAMAGES/SEVERANCES Generally partial acquisition can result in a diminished market value for the remainder of the area and result in severance and/or non-economic damages being paid for the remnants and/or a tract that may become landlocked. For Alternative 2A1, given that the tract identified for the project is already public owned, no damages or severance are attributed to this scenario of the project. For Alternative 2C1/2D1, given that the proposed acquisition would be a total acquisition of the fee simple estate, no damages or severances are required. For Alternative 8A1, given that the land required for the project is unimproved and already encumbered by a drainage easement, no damages or severance are required. 19. INCREMENTAL REAL ESTATE COSTS Relocation (PL 91-646h Government programs designed to benefit the public often result in the acquisition of private property and occasionally the displacement of people from their residences, businesses, non-profit organizations, or farms/ranches. To provide uniform and equitable treatment for persons displaced, Congress passed the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and amended it in 1987. This law is simply called the Uniform Act (PL 91-646). Given the tracts are vacant, there are no relocations for this project. Other Costs: In project cost estimates, there are various elements that are fluid and must be based on assumptions and generalized data. Property lines have not been surveyed, and detailed title research has not been performed. Complete inspections and comparisons of individual properties are not practical at this time. The project, if approved, will be implemented at an undetermined time in the future; and market conditions cannot be exactly projected. For these reasons, I believe a contingency of 20% is appropriate. 12 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas 20. CONCLUSION As requested by the client, the estimated project real estate cost was developed for each of the following three (3) alternatives. 1. Alternative 2A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on City Owned Tract PID 34607 • 0.82 acres $24,590 2. Alternative 2C1/2D1 — Fee Simple acquisition of Privately Owned Tract PID 39529 • 15.14 acres $484,715 3. Alternative 8A1 — Channel Improvement Easement on 21 Privately Owned Tracts in Avondale Subdivision • 1.837 acres $439,200 Damages/Severance Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Minerals Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Relocation (PL 91-646) Scenario 1 $0 Scenario 2 $0 Scenario 3 $0 Other Costs Scenario 1 $24,590 X 20% _ $4,918 Scenario 2 $484,715 X 20% = $96,943 Scenario 3 $439,200 X 20% = $87,840 13 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas Total Estimate by Scenario: Scenario 1 $29,508 Land value $24,590 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $4,918 Scenario 2 $581,658 Land value $484,715 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $96,943 Scenario 3 $527,040 Land value $439,200 Damages/Severances $0 Minerals $0 Relocation $0 Other Costs $87,840 I certify that I have no personal interest, present or prospective, in the property, or with the owners thereof. The value reported represents my best unbiased judgement. Pursuant to ER 405-1-04, Paragraph 4-17, this estimate is exempt from the provisions of USPAP by virtue of a Jurisdictional Exception. MILLER.WILLIAM Digitally signed by MILLERMILLIAM.CLAYTON. .0 LAYTO N. Date:2024.11.06 15:56:34 442074 -06,00, November 6, 2024 Clay Miller Review Appraiser USACE, Fort Worth District 22. AERIAL MAPS 14 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of Denton (Denton County)Texas Alternative 2A1 w J•1or 70 i 15 PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of D- •n (Denton County) Alternative 1 Ail dW 16 �' -�� '�•� .e .!.,,yet j�fFf�*_ A �r�t`1��.. ::. PROJECT: Real Estate Cost Estimate—Cooper Creek Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, City of D- •n (Denton County) Alternative 8A1 17 v�chiq D Home�"'gwds store , �. ' Appendix H : Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Cooper Creek, Denton, TX Section 205 Closeout Report February 2025 1.0 Introduction In order to complete a feasibility level Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste(HTRW)evaluation for the Cooper Creek CAP 205 project, a report was completed following the rules and guidance of ER 1165-2-132:HTRW Guidance for Civil Works Projects and ASTM E1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. The purpose of this search was to identify any sites with recognized environmental conditions (RECs)where hazardous substances or petroleum products have been released or are likely to have been released to soil, groundwater, or surface water in the proposed project area. 2.0 Search Parameters A desktop records review was conducted using various sources to determine the presence of HTRW sites on or near the project footprint. This search was focused on active cleanup sites and sites with a reasonable risk of HTRW release. Several databases were searched manually to narrow down the search area. These databases included the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Cleanups in my Community database,the EPA Envirofacts database,the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's(TCEQ)Central Registry, and the Texas Railroad Commission's (RRC) oil and gas well Public GIS Viewer. The information collected from this desktop records review was analyzed for recognized environmental conditions(RECs)that would affect the proposed project or need further investigation,given the proposed project measures. 3.0 Search Results Federal National Priorities List(NPL)—The National Priorities List(NPL)is the list of sites of national priority among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances,pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. The records search did not reveal any NPL sites in the project footprint or adjacent areas. This is based on a search of the EPA Superfund National Priorities List(NPL) map viewer. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)List—The CERCLIS database,now called the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS),tracks hazardous waste sites where remedial action has occurred under EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA)program. This list also includes sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The records search of EPA's listed SEMS sites did not reveal any sites in the project footprint or adjacent areas. This is based on a search of the EPA SEMS database. Federal No Further Remedial Action Planned(NFRAP)List—The Federal NFRAP list(now known as the SEMS archive list)tracks sites where no further remedial action is planned,based on available assessments and information. The list also represents sites that were not chosen for the NPL. Further EPA assessment could possibly be ongoing, and hazardous environmental conditions may still exist; however, in the absence of remedial action and assessment data,no determination about environmental hazards can be made. The records search did not reveal any NFRAP sites in the project footprint or adjacent areas. This is based on a search of the EPA SEMS database. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action List — The records search identified 1 site with corrective actions under RCRA within the project footprint or adjacent areas. Safety-Kleen Systems is half a mile from the Creek but this case is inactive currently and not anticipated to impact the project. This is based on a search of the EPA Cleanups in My Community map viewer. State Superfund Sites- This search is to check for any state CERCLA sites in the project vicinity. The records search of state CERCLA cleanup sites did not show any sites of concern in the project or adjacent areas. This search is based on a search of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Superf ind Sites database. State and Tribal Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites—This search is designed to check any state or tribal databases for solid waste handling facilities or landfills in the project vicinity. The records search did not find any solid waste facilities or landfill sites in area of this project or adjacent areas. This is based on a search of the TCEQ Municipal Solid Waste Viewer. State and Tribal Registered Storage Tanks—This list is a combination of the State of Texas registered Underground Storage Tank(UST)and Above-ground Storage Tank(AST) databases,representing sites with storage tanks registered with the State of Texas. The search revealed 6 open/active USTs within one mile of the project area(Figure 1). Records indicate 3 reported releases; all 3 show a status of"No Further Action",indicating the regulatory agency was satisfied with the response measures. The nearest open/active USTs are approximately 0.5 miles from the creek and recommended to be avoided in construction footprint, otherwise additional investigation and response will be required. Due to the distances from the proposed project and the closed NFA status for the releases,none of these tanks are expected to pose an impact to the project. Therefore,no registered storage tanks will be carried forward as RECs. These results are based on searches of the TCEQ Petroleum Storage Tank Viewer and EPA UST Finder databases. Toxic Release Inventory Sites- The Toxics Release Inventory(TRI)Database provides reports on releases,transfers, and waste managed for chemical releases reported. There are four sites that are within 1 mile of the project area but all were either closed or inactive and will not be considered as a REC. This was based on a search of the EPA TRI Explorer database. State and Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites—The TCEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program(VCP) database identifies sites where the responsible party chooses to clean up the site themselves with TCEQ oversight.No sites from this database were identified within one mile of the work area,based on a search of the TCEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program using the Central Registry(CR) Query. Brownfields List—A Brownfield is a property, the expansion,redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,pollutant, or contaminant.No sites from this database were identified within one mile of the work area,this was based on a search for Brownfields sites using the EPA Cleanups in My Community database. Oil and Gas Wells—A search for oil and gas wells in the project area using the RRC website identified multiple oil and gas sites including wells and pipelines within the surrounding area(Figure 3). Although not classified as HTRW under USACE regulations,pipelines and oil wells play an important role in the HTRW existing conditions near the potential project area. This is because the well and/or pipeline contents could potentially leak or spill into the surrounding environment or be struck by a contractor's equipment during construction of the proposed project features. Precise locations for oil and gas infrastructure should be obtained during the Pre-construction Engineering and Design phase and additional environmental testing of soils may be necessary depending on the location of oil and gas wells and if they are within the project footprint. The Railroad Commission(RRC)Public GIS Viewer was used to map these findings. 4.0 Conclusion No Recognized Environmental Conditions were identified within one mile of the project area that could be reasonably expected to affect the Cooper Creek CAP 205 project.Although not classified as HTRW under USACE regulations, several oil and gas infrastructure sites were identified within the surrounding area. As a result of these findings,pipelines and wells within the project vicinity and along potential site access routes should be precisely located during PED to ensure no unintended interaction occurs with the existing oil and gas facilities. Despite the lack of identified sites that could be reasonably expected to affect the project,there is always a possibility that previously unidentified HTRW could be uncovered, even when a proposed project is entirely within a pre-existing project footprint.An updated HTRW survey will be required should the project be reconsidered and funded at a future time.Additionally, care should be taken to identify and address HTRW concerns that may arise in a timely manner, so as not to affect proposed project timelines. Figure 2: HTRW Sites Cooper Creek HTRW Sites Mllaln GIe°4 Ga Free r n rn 77, vi ♦F�c H a►t Rd _ Hartbe Feb Ra s ass, i Linn d Dr/ ANas I`'n Discovery Ar Peg cc71,1 r fie° i i o u, E,ren Parts y ? Avondale 2 t:tM1�'i,r Car • C r.ir K Park p vJ cirl!r 'aO QQ Z Path _ F•U�rv°�slty DI n c WUnlvaslty-0r = Teas VYomart, A.tri Lr o� Stagg Rd m � in � - Unrverslh � °r Cr* o U + Donlon z o �! _ e a o _ A s ar,tt3n1., St rjJ k-� IM r g Denton Mach • • Park r� , 7/31/2024 1:65,603 Sloes • 0 0.47 0.95 19mi Underground Storage Tanks-Releases RCRA Corrective Action 0 0.75 1.5 3 km State Outlines"dines UIIINDr§R Tar.UNTP�Io Ir=t'I,C Ir or De 104,'kat Pa as a INltlln• Responses A Esit HERE,Gamer,INCREMENT P.uros,NETUNASA,NGA.EPA.VGOA Toxic Release Inventory System Figure 3: Oil & Gas Wells and Pipelines Natural,Vth Gas .. ilic; tv„ itiret Tronsnrssion -jfansmssjcnGat Trdn 922r' L21 Long Rd w m CN�rlurr �,. C c-c* ire - :52 � b n Una or North pdrhSM a 9IVd tro LL a�okscowry ercules Ln In �Lrs s tp fd 33281 im ti i f a C- Kings Row a Del Dr `h ° ' N o w r E.e = y Pe;i �Fc 3 �`cdsot Dry C o. i Own o U d Dr s bul V►�^�'� i akec Vol Pp* Emerson Lr1 H Q Fo all Cu c 7H Mlstywood Ln LP( 33026 E Y ; c � 2H 33062 y`o to = LP ISC7 Woodl and SI - rca 1ai/ <(Liu) Nat Gaother lner Naha aYU r sum Emery 5t Audra Transmisalm ronarre ery ca se; v Cordell St coi c 11938 - July31,2024 136,112 Railroads Pipelines n Gas LPGAS Sites o 0 2s os 1 mi 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 km Oil / Gas C1y or D11D1.Brl.HERE.W1m 1,111C RURNT/,NGA,11SGS