090525 Friday Staff Report
City Manager’s Office
215 E. McKinney St., Denton, TX 76201 (940) 349-8307
OUR CORE VALUES
Inclusion Collaboration Quality Service Strategic Focus Fiscal Responsibility
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 05, 2025
TO: The Honorable Mayor Hudspeth and Council Members
FROM: Sara Hensley, City Manager
SUBJECT: Friday Staff Report
Upcoming Meetings
1. Development Code Review Committee on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. at
the Development Service Center. 2. CANCELLED - Board of Ethics on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room. 3. Historic Landmark Commission on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the Development Service Center.
4. Library Board on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at the North Branch Library. 5. Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board on Monday, September 8, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Community Room. 6. Work Session of the City Council on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room followed by a Special Called Meeting at 6:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers. 7. Animal Shelter Advisory Committee on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. at the Linda McNatt Animal Care & Adoption Center. 8. Economic Development Partnership Board on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 11:00
a.m. at the Development Service Center.
9. CANCELLED - Airport Advisory Board on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 3:00
p.m. in the Airport Terminal Meeting Room. 10. Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room & Council Chambers. 11. CANCELLED - Health and Building Standards Commission on Thursday, September
11, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. at the Development Service Center. 12. Community Services Advisory Committee on Friday, September 12, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. at the Development Service Center. Please check the City of Denton website for final meeting days and times as information is subject
to change after the Friday Report is published.
Public Meetings & Agendas | Denton, TX (civicplus.com)
General Information & Status Updates
A. Monthly Mobility Report - Innovative Transportation Solutions (ITS) provides a monthly
report that includes an overview of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) regional projects. See Attachment A for the ITS Monthly Mobility Report for review. Staff contact: Seth Garcia, Capital Projects
B. Mayor’s Pet Spotlight – Meet Mango, a delightful and energetic puppy who’s been waiting for his forever home at the shelter. His previous foster family shared that he’s a wonderful companion,
getting along well with kids, cats, and other dogs. Plus, Mango is
already potty trained, and crate trained, making him a fantastic addition to any family. With his playful spirit, he’s sure to bring joy and fun to your life! Please contact Denton Animal Services by phone at (940) 349-7594, or via email at
Animal.Services@cityofdenton.com. Staff contact: Bailey
Coleson, Animal Services.
C. Downtown Safety Meeting – On Tuesday, Aug. 26, City staff hosted a downtown safety meeting with local property and business owners at the Development Services Center. The
meeting drew 28 attendees and covered a range of topics, including the City's efforts to
support persons experiencing homelessness and a status update of the Downtown Ambassador Program. Additionally, the Denton Police Department provided information on their Downtown patrol team, including coverage areas and hours of operation, and covered resources for business and property owners. Staff contact: Kristen Pulido,
Economic Development.
2
Responses to Council Member Requests for Information
A. Thistle Hill Estates Construction – On Aug. 29, Council
Member Holland asked staff to address an ongoing concern with large, heavy construction vehicles entering the Thistle Hill Estates neighborhood. Staff found that a poorly placed sign was inadvertently diverting construction traffic into the
neighborhood, rather than away. Staff relocated the “No
Construction Traffic” sign into the entrance of the Thistle Hill Estate neighborhood on Andrew Avenue, thereby directing construction traffic away from the neighborhood. Staff contact: Wesley M. McBride, Capital Projects
B. Left turn from Bolivar to University Drive – On Aug. 9, Council Member Holland inquired
about eliminating the left turn option from Bolivar Street to University Drive. The City will
provide traffic counts and a safety evaluation to TXDOT for consideration. There are
several similar median openings along the US 380/University Drive corridor, and
businesses might be adversely impacted by the closures, which will be evaluated. Data
collection and safety analysis are expected within 3 to 4 months. Findings will be presented
to TxDOT for a determination and approval. Staff contact: Chandra Muruganandham,
Transportation Services
3
Attachments
Attachment A: August Monthly Mobility Report
City of Denton Transportation/Mobility
Project Status Report
Prepared by ITS
August 2025
PROJECTS
• Project Summary ............................................ page 2
• I-35 North ....................................................... page 3
• I-35/35E/35W Merge...................................... page 5
• I-35E/Mayhill ................................................. page 7
• I-35W Frontage Roads Middle ....................... page 8
• Loop 288 West Frontage Roads ..................... page 9
• Loop 288 East-US 380 Connector ................ page 10
• Bonnie Brae Segment 7 ................................ page 11
• FM 1515 ....................................................... page 12
• FM 1173 ....................................................... page 13
• Outer Loop.................................................... page 14
• Glossary of Acronyms .................................. page 15
• TxDOT Funding Categories ......................... page 16
• Denton City Limits ....................................... page 17
City of Denton Transportation Update Prepared by:
August 2025 1
4
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT LET DATE CONTRACTOR/
ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION
COST
I-35 North Various Stantec $936,000,747
I-35/35E/35W Merge 04-2024 Sema Construction $588,780,841
I-35E/Mayhill 06-2025 Zachary Construction $123,539,232
I-35W Frontage Roads Middle 09-2028 WSP $213,024,000
Loop 288 West Frontage Roads 09-2028 CP&Y $227,423,354
Loop 288 East-US 380 Connector * Westwood $1,262,000,000
Bonnie Brae Segment 7 * Westwood *
FM 1515 * LTRA $69,484,709
FM 1173 * Halff $125,852,145
Outer Loop * LJA $1,547,212,128
TOTAL $5,093,317,156
5
I-35 North
CSJ:
0195-02-074; 0195-02-076; 0195-02-081; 0195-
01-116; 0195-02-084; 0195-02-092; 0195-02-
091; 0195-02-090
Schematic Approval: January 31, 2019
Limits: From US 77 to FM 3002 (Cooke County line) Environmental Approval: October 7, 2019 Length: 12.4 miles
Description:
Reconstruct and widen 4- to 6-lane rural
freeway with ramp modifications and
reconstruct 4- to 4/6-lane frontage roads
ROW Acquisition Complete: July 2023
Est. Construction Cost:
$936,000,747
-092: $187,409,484
-091: $158,653,846
-090: $187,500,000
-081: $128,704,134
-116: $110,895,970
-084: $116,266,771
Utility Relocations Complete:
-092: August 2026
-091: August 2026
-090: August 2026
-081: June 2025
-116: October 2025
-084: October 2025
Construction Funding:
$801,507,230
CAT 4: $220,966,122
CAT 11: $2,574,631
CAT 12: $577,966,477
100% Plans:
-092: March 2026
-091: December 2026
-090: June 2027
-081: June 2025
-116: August 2025
-084: August 2025
Firm: Stantec Ready to Let Date:
-092: August 2026
-091: December 2026
-090: June 2027
-081: June 2025
-116: October 2025
-084: October 2025
TxDOT PM: Dawit Abraham Let Date:
-092: November 2026
-091: November 2027
-090: November 2028
-081: August 7, 2025
-116: December 2029
-084: December 2029
CSJ: 0195-02-092
0195-02-091
0195-02-090
6
Current Activity:
• PS&E: Work on the 100% PS&E plan set for the -074 CSJ is underway with updates to 2024
TxDOT Specifications. TxDOT has split -074 CSJ into three separate CSJs for letting.
• Work on the 100% PS&E plan set for -084 CSJ is underway with updates to the 2024 TxDOT Specifications; some scope being shifted from the -081 CSJ.
• Utilities: The status of utilities in conflict is listed below by CSJ/segment.
IH-35 from US 77 to South of FM 455; CSJ: 0195-02-074
• Utilities that are clear of construction: AT&T, Atmos Distribution, Brazos Electric, City of Denton, Frontier, Nortex, OneOK, Sanger Electric, and Sanger Water/Wastewater.
• Utilities that are currently relocating: CenturyLink/Brightspeed, Bolivar WSC, CoServ
Electric, MCI/Verizon, and UTRWD.
• Utilities that are pending relocations: Altice, Lumen/Level 3, and Zayo.
• Utilities that are critical path: None
IH-35 from North of FM 455 to View Road; CSJ: 0195-02-081
o Utilities that are clear of construction: AT&T, Bolivar WSC, Brightspeed/CenturyLink, Lumen/Level 3, Nortex, Sanger Electric, and Sanger Water/Wastewater. o Utilities that are currently relocating: MCI/Verizon and Zayo. o Utilities that are pending relocations: None.
o Utilities that are critical path: MCI/Verizon. Identified that Lumen/Level 3 and Zayo may
not be clear; pending confirmation. IH-35 from View Road to Cooke County Line (FM 3002); CSJ: 0195-02-084
• Utilities that are clear of construction: AT&T, Bolivar WSC, CoServ Electric,
Lumen/Level 3, Nortex, and Sanger Electric.
• Utilities that are currently relocating: None.
• Utilities that are pending relocations: MCI/Verizon, Oncor, and Zayo.
• Utilities that are critical path: Oncor Electric needs to be clear prior to Zayo.
• Construction: The 0195-02-081 project let for construction on August 7, 2025. The apparent low bidder is Indus Road & Bridge, Inc. with a low bid of $128,704.133.71. There are 37 months of
barricades.
7
Current Activity:
• Utilities: Identified conflicts are being coordinated in the field for adjustment.
• Construction: The project let for construction on April 4, 2024. The project was awarded to Sema Construction with a low bid of $588,780,840.70, at 18% above engineer’s estimate.
There are 1,356 working days and 56 months of barricades. See attached TxDOT construction report.
I-35/35E/35W Merge
CSJ:
0195-03-099 (N Texas Blvd to I-35E/W)
0195-03-090 (I-35E/W to US 380)
0195-03-087 (US 380 to US 77)
Schematic Approval: -090: August 2011
-087: January 31, 2019
Limits: From North Texas Blvd to US 77 north of
Denton Environmental Approval: -090: June 2017
-087: October 7, 2019
Length: 5.073 miles ROW Acquisition Completed: May 2022
Description:
Reconstruct interchange and existing
frontage roads; reconstruct and widen to 6/8-
lane rural freeway with ramp modifications
Utility Relocations Complete: May 2025
Est. Construction Cost: $588,780,841 City of Denton Utility Relocations Completed: December 2024
Construction Funding:
$588,780,841
CAT 2: $65,978,054
CAT 3: $1,452,495
CAT 4: $75,042,004
CAT 11: $106,973,305
CAT 12 (Strategic Priority): $219,334,983
CAT 12 (Texas Clear Lanes): $120,000,000
100% Plans: January 2024
Firm & Key Contact: AECOM (-090); Stantec (-087) Let Date: April 4, 2024
TxDOT PM: John Rich Construction Completion: November 2029
8
TxDOT Monthly Project Report
Date of report: August 6, 2025
Report prepared by: Jonathan Rich
Project: 0195-03-087, ETC Control: 0195-03-087, ETCA Highway: IH 35
Limits: IH35E at North Texas Blvd to North of US 77 on IH35 Contractor: Sema
TxDOT Project Manager: Jonathan Rich Phone: (945) 290-0731 Contractor’s Project Manager: Shea Hurley Phone: (720) 215-8056
Date Work Began: January 13, 2025 Anticipated Completion Date: November 2029 Current Activities:
Current activities: Southbound frontage road and northbound frontage road: drainage being installed. Temporary detours on new I-35E to I-35W direct connector; northbound frontage Road at Bonnie Brae – traffic switch on August 13, 2025. Permanent pavement on I-35E northbound frontage road at N. Texas and I-35W. ITS, illumination, and signage; pole removal throughout project; transfer to temporary ITS ongoing on northbound
frontage road; temporary traffic signal at Bonnie Brae ongoing. Building 6 retaining walls throughout project; placing panels and earthwork; building 4 bridges throughout project; placing columns and caps. Narrative description of last month’s activities: Completion of culvert by UNT stadium; southbound frontage road/northbound frontage road US 380 to North Texas – drainage lines. Temporary detours – ongoing activities; direct connector; northbound frontage road at Bonnie Brae – hot mix asphalt and prep; northbound frontage road detour – hot mix asphalt and prep; southbound frontage road south of US 380 – hot mix asphalt. Permanent pavement on northbound N. Texas/Bonnie Brae off-ramp – flex base. Permanent road and earthwork for – southbound frontage road tie-in at US 288; southbound frontage road N. Texas to Bonnie Brae; I-35W Loop to Airport Road; and northbound frontage road N. Texas to Bonnie Brae off-ramp. ITS, illumination, and signage;
pole removal throughout project; ITS northbound frontage road transfer to temporary ITS; temporary traffic signal at Bonnie Brae. Building 5 retaining walls throughout project; placing panels and earthwork; building 4 bridges throughout project; placing columns and caps.
Narrative description of activities planned for next month: Drainage lines begin installed at I-35W, southbound frontage road/northbound frontage road at Scripture-US 380-Loop 288, and southbound frontage road Airport to Prairie/Oak. Temporary detours: ongoing activities throughout project. Striping and traffic switches pending. Permanent pavement on northbound frontage road N Texas-Bonnie Brae off-ramp – flex base. Permanent road at southbound frontage road tie-in at US 388, southbound frontage road N Texas to Bonnie Brae; I-35W Loop to Airport Road – hot mix asphalt; and northbound frontage road N Texas to Bonnie Brae off-ramp
– hot mix asphalt. ITS, illumination, and signage; pole removal throughout project; ITS northbound frontage road; transfer to temporary ITS; place overhead temporary signs throughout project. Continue building 6 retaining walls throughout project; placing panels and earthwork; continue building 4 bridges throughout project; placing columns and caps.
Traffic issues: Nightly lane closures. Temporary one-lane frontage road throughout project in multiple locations. Several night traffic switches expected in August/September. Plans for changes in traffic patterns: None Item(s) of work currently controlling project completion: Bridge structures and reinforced concrete pipe placement.
Other items of significance: None
9
Current Activity:
• Utilities: The status of utilities in conflict is listed below. o Utilities currently clear of construction: Atmos Gas (Distribution), AT&T, CoServ Gas,
City of Denton Water, City of Denton Wastewater, DISD, NGG, Oncor, and United
Private Networks.
o Utilities that are currently relocating: Astound (Grande), Brightspeed/CenturyLink, Charter/Spectrum, DISD, DME, Frontier, Lumen/Level 3, and Zayo. o Utilities that are pending relocation: None.
o Utilities that are critical path: DME is placing new poles needed for Charter and Frontier
to complete. Brightspeed, Frontier, Grande, and Lumen splicing estimated for September 2025.
• Construction: The project let for construction on June 5, 2025. Apparent low bidder is Zachary Construction Corporation with a low bid of $123,539,232.30, at 16.2% below engineer’s estimate.
There are 981 working days and 40 months of barricades. Contract has 120-day delay. TxDOT is evaluating utility clearance date and coordinating with Zachary on start date.
I-35E/Mayhill
CSJ: 0196-01-109 Schematic Approval: February 2011
Limits: I-35E intersection with Mayhill from
Pockrus Page Rd to Loop 288 Environmental Clearance: January 31, 2012
Length: 1.912 miles ROW Acquisition Completed: November 2022
Description: Reconstruct interchange at Mayhill and
I-35E and existing 4-lane frontage roads Utility Relocations Complete: August 2025
Construction Cost: $123,539,232 City of Denton Utility
Relocations Completed: February 2024
Construction Funding: $139,130,349 CAT 2: $129,130,349
CAT 4: $10,000,000
100% Plans: November 2024
Firm & Key Contact: LTRA, Tyler Martin Let Date: June 5, 2025
TxDOT Project Manager: Chaikou Bah Construction Start: *
10
Current Activity:
• PS&E: WSP continues addressing TxDOT comments to 95% plan set and is working toward
completion of final plan set.
• ROW: There are 58 parcels to acquire. There are: 3 parcels in ED and 55 parcels acquired. ROW acquisition has been placed on hold due to District budgetary constraints.
• Utilities: The status of utilities in conflict is listed below. o Utilities that are clear of construction: DME Transmission and UTRWD.
o Utilities that are currently relocating: None.
o Utilities that are pending relocations: Atmos, CoServ Electric, DME Distribution, Fiberlight, Frontier, Fiberlight, Lumen, and Zayo. o Utilities that are critical path: CoServ pole placement design and placement is needed for telecoms to finalize their design.
I-35W Frontage Roads Middle
CSJ: 0081-13-071 Schematic Approval: March 20, 2020
Limits: From 0.7 miles south of FM 407 to FM 2449 Environmental Clearance: June 30, 2020 Length: 6.76 miles
Project Description: Construct frontage roads ROW Acquisition Complete: June 2026
Est. Construction Cost: $260,713,231 Utility Relocations Complete: December 2027
Construction Funding:
$213,024,000
CAT 2: $24,537,247
CAT 12: $188,486,753
100% Plans: December 2025
Firm: WSP Ready to Let Date: December 2027
TxDOT PM: Gutema Gebriel Let Date: September 2028
11
Current Status:
• ROW: For RCSJ 2250-02-023, there
are 19 parcels to acquire. There are: 2
parcels in ED and 17 parcels in
possession. For RCSJ 2250-02-024, there are 20 parcels to acquire. There are: 5 parcels in negotiations and 15 parcels in possession.
• ROW acquisition efforts are on hold due to District budgetary constraints.
• PS&E: CP&Y updated PBLR for final
submittal.
• CP&Y updated Exhibit A and made final submittal on September 30, 2024.
• The 95% PS&E plan set submittal was
made on September 3, 2024. The comment resolution meeting was held on January 28, 2025. CP&Y continued addressing comments and working toward final submittal.
• TxDOT requested revised traffic numbers; CP&Y awaiting new pavement design to finalize submittal.
• Bi-weekly coordination meetings underway.
• Utilities: SUE Level A submittal was made on October 11, 2024. Completed two Level A test holes for gas pipeline crossing per TxDOT request. Investigated conflict with Enterprise and Atmos Gas lines.
Loop 288 West Frontage Roads
CSJ: 2250-00-013 (from I-35 to US 380)
2250-00-032 (from US 380 to I-35W) Schematic Approval: March 20, 2020
Limits: From I-35 to I-35W Environmental Clearance: September 28, 2020 Length: 9.0 miles
Description: Construct frontage roads ROW Acquisition Complete: December 2025
Estimated Construction
Cost:
$227,423,354
-013: $95,315,990
-032: $132,107,364
Utility Relocations Complete: April 2026
ConstructionFunding: $3,000,000 CAT 3
$1,000,000 CAT 7 100% Plans: December 2025
Firm & Key Contact: CP&Y, Tom Cochill & Jacob Roberts Ready to Let Date: April 2026
TxDOT Project Manager: Gutema Gebriel Let Date: Pending Funding
12
Current Activity:
• PS&E: Westwood completed 100% review comments on May 2, 2025. Westwood is making
minor right-of-way footprint revisions to schematic.
• Westwood is coordinating with City of Denton regarding Transpere Facility Development on northeast corner of Geesling and incorporating schematic concept. Monthly coordination meeting with City of Denton held on August 7, 2025.
• Westwood is updating estimates, completing traffic control plan, and finalizing TxDOT forms.
• Environmental: Public hearing date is expected to be held in February 2026. TxDOT approved project for an Environmental Assessment (EA). Westwood continues working on Environmental
Assessment and Technical Reports. Weekly meetings with environmental coordinator underway.
Loop 288 East-US 380 Connector
CSJ: 2250-02-025; 0135-10-066; 0135-10-066 Schematic Approval: December 2025
Limits: from I-35 to US 380 east of Geesling Road Environmental Clearance: July 2026 Length: 8 miles
Project Description:
Construct Loop 288 frontage roads and grade
separations and an improved connector to US
380
ROW Acquisition Completion: *
Estimated Const. Cost: $1.262 billion Utility Relocations Completion: *
Construction Funding: $0 100% Plans: *
Firm & Key Contact: Westwood, Mark Schluter, Mark Zoellner Ready to Let Date: *
TxDOT PM: Stephen Endres Let Date: *
13
Current Activity:
• PS&E: The segment between US 77 and Loop 288 has been added to Loop 288 East contract with Westwood.
Bonnie Brae Segment 7
CSJ: * Schematic Approval: June 2025
Limits: From US 77 to Loop 288 Environmental Clearance: December 2025
Length: 0.2 miles ROW Acquisition Complete: *
Description: Extension of Bonnie Brae north of US 77 Utility Relocations Complete: *
Est. Construction Cost: * 100% Plans: *
Construction Funding: * Ready to Let Date: *
Firm & Key Contact: Westwood, Mark Schluter, Mark Zoellner Let Date: *
TxDOT Project Manager: Stephen Endres Construction Start: *
14
Current Activity:
• PS&E: LTRA updated plans to the 2024 TxDOT Specifications and submitted the final plan 6-25set on June 28, 2024. Plans have been shelved until letting.
• Exhibit A: LTRA submitted new Exhibit A for CPKC approval.
• Utilities: The status of utilities in conflict is listed below.
o Utilities that are clear of construction: None o Utilities that are currently relocating: None
o Utilities that are pending relocation: AT&T, Atmos, Brightspeed/CenturyLink,
Charter/Spectrum, City of Denton Water/Wastewater, DME Distribution, Lumen,
MCI/Verizon, and UPN.
o Utilities that are critical path: City Water needs to be placed prior to Atmos. City SUA in process. DME poles are needed for telecoms to begin. Atmos to begin relocations in October 2025.
FM 1515
CSJ: 1951-01-011 Schematic Re-approval: October 13, 2021
Limits: From Bonnie Brae to Masch Branch Road Environmental Approval: August 4, 2020
Length: 2.096 miles Environmental Re-eval: March 15, 2022
Description: Widen existing 2-lane rural section to a six-
lane divided urban roadway ROW Acquisition Complete: July 2023
Est. Construction Cost: $69,484,709 Utility Relocations Complete: March 2027
Construction Funding: $500,000 CAT 7 100% Plans: June 2024
Firm & Key Contact: LTRA, Tyler Martin Ready to Let Date: March 2027
TxDOT Project Manager: Bryan Esmaili-Doki Let Date: Pending Funding
15
Current Activity:
• PS&E: Halff resubmitted final PS&E plan set on May 10, 2025.
• Halff submitted BNSF Exhibit A on September 24, 2024.
• Utilities: The status of utilities in conflict is listed below. o Utilities that are clear of construction: None.
o Utilities that are currently relocating: AT&T, Atmos Distribution, CoServ Electric, City of Denton Sewer, and Oncor.
o Utilities that are pending relocations: Altice, Atmos, Brightspeed, City of Krum Water/Sewer, Fiberlight, and Zayo. o Utilities that are critical path: City of Krum Water/Sewer; Atmos line resolution to
avoid adjusting, and CoServ and Oncor poles need to be placed for telecoms.
FM 1173
CSJ: 1059-01-047; 1059-02-002 Schematic Approval: March 20, 2020
Limits: From I-35E to FM 156 Environmental Clearance: August 26, 2021 Length: 3.613 miles
Description: Widen and realign to 4/6-lane divided
urban road ROW Acquisition Completed: September 2023
Est. Construction Cost:
$125,852,145
-047: $62,892,803
-002: $62,959,342
Utility Relocations Complete: June 2026
Construction Funding: $0 100% Plans: May 2025
Firm & Key Contact: Halff Associates, Adam Bazar Ready to Let Date: June 2026
TxDOT PM: Kwan Lam Let Date: Pending Funding
16
Current Activity: • Design: LJA submitted 60% schematics to TxDOT for review on July 7, 2025. LJA is preparing
schematic for public meeting.
• LJA continues coordination with NCTCOG, TxDOT, USACE, and other agencies.
• Traffic projections were updated to include the limits east of DNT. Completed crash data review for 2023 and 2024. LJA is working on traffic.
• Utilities: LJA continues developing utility conflict matrix. LJA continues developing Level D map. LJA is coordinating and identifying areas to perform Level B SUE. LJA is working to develop utility cost estimate and utility easements.
• Environmental: Evaluating easements and TxDOT property near USACE property. Reviewing
additional constraints and areas of concern. Archeological survey is in progress.
• Other: Project website is available: www.DentonCountyOuterLoop.com.
• Public Involvement: Anticipate public meetings to be held from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on September
29, 2025, at the Denton Convention Center (Embassy Suites) and on September 30, 2025, at the
Midway Church (gymnasium in Aubrey/Pilot Point). LJA is preparing for public meeting.
Outer Loop
CSJ: 0918-46-341 Schematic Approval: March 2026
Limits: From I-35 to the DNT at the Denton County
Line Environmental Clearance: September 2026
Length: 23 miles ROW Acquisition Complete: *
Description: Construct a six-lane controlled access
freeway with continuous frontage roads Utility Relocations Complete: *
Est. Construction Cost: $1,547,212,128 100% Plans: *
Construction Funding: $0 Ready to Let Date: *
Firm & Key Contact: LJA, Tony Kimmey Let Date: *
TxDOT Project Manager: Liang Ding Construction Start: *
17
• AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic
• AFA – Advanced Funding Agreement
• ARPA – Archeological Resources Protection Act
• CE – Categorical Exclusion (environmental clearance process for projects that do not involve significant environmental impacts)
• CLOMR – (FEMA’s) Conditional Letter of Map Revision
• Conformity – Federal requirement in nonattainment areas to conduct air quality analysis on projects, programs, and policies identified in transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, federally funded projects, or projects requiring federal approval
• CSJ – (TxDOT’s) Control Section Job Number
• DCC – Design Concept Conference
• EA – Environmental Assessment
• ED – Eminent Domain
• EIS – Environmental Impact Statement
• EPIC – Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments
• ESAL – Equivalent Single Axle Load (TxDOT design calculation)
• FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact
• IAJR – Interstate Access Justification Request
• ICA – Interlocal Cooperative Agreement
• IFP – Initial Financial Plan
• Let – Official date of receipt and opening of bids
• MAPO – Meeting with Affected Property Owners
• MPO – Metropolitan Planning Organization
• MTP – Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• NCTCOG – North Central Texas Council of Governments
• NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
• NOPC – Notice of Proposed Construction
• NTTA – North Texas Toll Authority
• PBLR – Preliminary Bridge Layout Review
• PS&E – Plans Specifications and Estimate
• PUA – Possession and Use Agreement
• ROW – Right-of-Way
• RTC – Regional Transportation Council
• RTL – Ready to Let (date project is clear for construction but lacks funding for actual let)
• RTR – Regional Toll Revenue (funds resulting from certain toll/managed lane projects in DFW region)
• RULIS – Right-of-Way, Utilities, Leasing, and Information System
• STBG – Surface Transportation Block Grant
• STIP – Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
• SUE – Subsurface Utility Engineering
• SW3P – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
• TCP – Traffic Control Plan
• TIA – Time Impact Analysis
• TPP – Transportation Planning and Programming
• TPWD – Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
• TTC – Texas Transportation Commission
• TxDOT – Texas Department of Transportation
• UTP – Unified Transportation Program
• VE – Value Engineering
Glossary of Acronyms
18
• CAT 1: Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation
• CAT 2: Metro and Urban Area Corridor Projects / NCTCOG
• CAT 3: Non-Traditionally Funded Transportation Projects
• CAT 4: Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects
• CAT 5: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement / NCTCOG
• CAT 6: Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation (Bridge)
• CAT 7: Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation / NCTCOG
• CAT 8: Safety Projects
• CAT 9: Transportation Alternatives
• CAT 10: Supplemental Transportation Projects
• CAT 11: District Discretionary
• CAT 12: Strategic Priority
TxDOT Funding Categories
19
Denton City Limits
20
Informal Staff Reports
A. 2025-067 89th Legislative Implementation .................…………………………...………22
B. 2025-068 Cooper Creek USACE Study ………………………………………………….33 C. 2025-069 Water Utility Permit Protests ………………………………………………..325
Upcoming Community Events and Public Meetings Please visit the City of Denton website for upcoming community events and details.
Information A. Council Requests for Information ...................................................................................350B. Public Meetings Calendar ...............................................................................................352
C. Future Work Session Items .............................................................................................356
D. Street Closure Report ......................................................................................................357
21
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Provide a summary of bills passed by the 89th Legislature’s Regular Session that require the City of Denton to implement new procedures and/or make code amendments.
BACKGROUND: The 89th Legislature convened on January 14, 2025, and adjourned on June 2, 2025 for the biannual, 140-day legislative session. In total, 8,719 bills were filed and 1,213 were passed and/or
sent to the Governor. As a political subdivision of the State, the City of Denton has a vested interest
in the actions taken by the State Legislature during session. Of the 1,213 bills passed, roughly 260 of them relate to city business. Following the veto period, which ended on June 22, 2025, staff reviewed the bills passed and have developed plans to implement the bills that require action from the City of Denton.
DISCUSSION: This report outlines the bills that necessitate policy or code amendments, departmental process changes, new training or reporting requirements, and other implementation efforts across City departments. It also includes estimated timelines for Council consideration and implementation.
Regulation
Bill Summary Action Est. Council
Consideration
Est.
Implementation
HB 2464 Prohibits municipalities from regulating a home-based business Policy/Code Amendment 11/19/2025 11/19/2025
HB 303 Deregulation of honey production operations. Department process change N/A 9/1/2025
SB 1008 Regulation of food service industry. Department process change N/A 9/1/2025
HB 2844 Regulation of mobile food service establishments. Policy/Code Amendment Spring 2026 7/1/2026
HB 2464 prevents cities from prohibiting the operation of or requiring a license or permit to
operate a no-impact home-based business. The bill became effective immediately upon passage,
and staff have reviewed all home occupation business requests to ensure compliance. The new law
requires an update to the Denton Development Code to amend existing definitions of a “no-impact
home business”, as well as amending the use specific standards for home businesses.
Implementation will be completed upon Council consideration on October 21, 2025.
22
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
HB 303 prevents cities from regulating honey production operations. The City does not currently
regulate the production of honey but does regulate sellers of honey as a permitted agricultural
vendor or farmers market food vendor. With the implementation of this law, the City will not
regulate sole honey production operations and establishments and/or vendors that sell only honey
products will not be required to obtain a farmers market food permit. HB 303 goes into effect and
all process changes were be implemented on September 1, 2025.
SB 1008 provides new provisions for city regulation of the food service industry. Specifically,
restricting the requirement(s) of a permit, license, or certification of food service establishments
to only if the same requirement(s) would apply to a similar entity or person within the city limits,
and prohibits a city from charging an establishment for a permit fee for the retail sale of alcohol if
the establishment has already paid a fee to any county, city, or public health district, or a fee that
would be paid to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Additionally, it prohibits a city
from requiring a food service establishment to obtain a sound regulation permit, charging a sound
regulation fee, or otherwise prohibiting sound-related activity. The implementation of this law will
require minor department process changes, including the development of a schedule of fees to be
submitted to the Department of State Health Services. Currently, the City only regulates and/or
permits establishments that would be regulated by the Department of State Health Services at a
cost that is less than the DSHS permitting fee and does not prohibit sound-related activities at a
food service establishment outside of the current city sound regulation that does not conflict with
this new or existing state law. The implementation of this law were completed on September 1,
2025.
HB 2844 preempts a city, county, or public health district from requiring small-scale and/or
mobile food businesses to obtain a permit or pay a permitting fee to operate a food service
establishment if the business holds a permit issued by the Texas Department of State Health
Services for that purpose or is a licensed food manufacturer. Additionally, it preempts a city’s
authority to regulate mobile food vending in a way that conflicts with state law and requires the
Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules for mobile food vendors to address health
and safety risks. This new law will require amendment(s) to the City of Denton Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 13 – Food and Food Service Establishments by July 1, 2026. Staff will present
these changes to Council for consideration in Spring of 2026. Additionally, the bill continues to
allow cities to regulate mobile food businesses through the zoning code and fire code. Staff are
currently working on the proposed code amendments presented to Council on April 1, 2025, as
well as conducting the food truck public engagement as requested by Council.
23
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
Land Use
HB 24 modifies the procedures and requirements for protests of a proposed change to a zoning
regulation or district boundary. Specifically, it requires a protest must be written and signed by the
owners of; a) at least 20 percent of the area of the lots or land covered by the proposed change, or
b) at least 60 percent of the area of the lands or land immediately adjoining the area covered by
the proposed change and extending 200 feet from the proposed change area.
The implementation of this new law will require amendments to the Denton Development Code
to reflect the new procedures and population thresholds for protests. The Council will have the
opportunity to review and consider the revisions on November 19, 2025, and implementation will
follow Council’s consideration.
HB 2025 eliminates the requirement for a plat record, replat, or amended plat request to attach a
tax receipt indicating that the taxes imposed by the applicable taxing units have been paid or not
yet been calculated. The City will modify the current process for plat requests to remove the tax
receive requirement as of September 1, 2025.
Bill Summary Action Est. Council
Consideration
Est.
Implementation
HB 24 Modifies procedures for changes to a zoning regulation or district boundary Policy/Code Amendment 11/18/2025 11/18/2025
HB 2025 Modifies the filing for record of a plat, replat, or amended plat or replat of a
subdivision of real property or a
condominium.
Department process change N/A 9/1/2025
HB 2512 Clarifies the requirements for
requesting removal from a city’s ETJ
Department
process change
N/A 8/1/2025
SB 1341 Amends the definition of
“manufactured home” to the statutory
citation for the definition of manufactured home under federal law.
Policy/Code
Amendment
11/18/2025 11/18/2025
SB 1883 Relating to the approval of land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees.
Policy/Code Amendment 9/30/2025 11/18/2025
SB 2965 Relating to territory in an emergency services district that is annexed by a municipality
Department process change N/A 9/1/2025
SB 1567 Relating to the authority of home-rule municipalities to regulate the occupancy of dwelling units.
Code/Policy Amendment 11/18/2025 11/18/2025
24
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
HB 2512 requires that a resident may only file a petition for release from the ETJ if the resident
resides in the area subject to release, and if a city receives a petition for release, the city must
provide notice to the residents and landowners no later than the seventh business day after the date
of receipt. Additionally, the bill stipulates that before an area is released from the ETJ by election,
a landowner in the area must be provided with an opportunity to have their property remain within
the city’s ETJ. The bill also explicitly allows the reduction in size of a city’s ETJ by an ETJ
removal petition without the consent of the City Council. Implementation of this bill will adhere
to the City’s litigation position.
SB 1341 amends the definition of “manufactured home” to the statutory citation for the definition
home under federal law. While the implementation of this bill will not require any process changes,
the Denton Development Code will be amended to reflect the new definition. Council will consider
the code amendment on November 18, 2025.
SB 1883 makes several changes to the assessment and collection of impact fees. It requires cities
to make land use assumptions and capital improvement plans publicly available at least 60 days
prior to the first publication of notice for any public hearing on those plans; it changes the approval
threshold for the imposition of an impact fee, now requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote by
the governing body; and imposes a three-year moratorium on increasing impact fees after they are
adopted or last raised. Additionally, it amends the advisory committee (Capital Improvement
Advisory Committee) composition requirements, raising the industry representation threshold
from 40 to 50 percent, and removes the provision allowing planning and zoning commissions to
serve as the advisory committee. Lastly, it mandates an independent financial audit prior to the
adoption or increase of an impact fee. The bill will require the City to amend city ordinances to
establish a new Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, as the Planning and Zoning
Commission will no longer be eligible to serve in that capacity. Staff will share information
regarding this new committee on September 30, 2025. While the bill decreases the frequency of
impact fee updates to every three years, work that is currently in progress is allowed to continue
under the bill’s provisions if it is completed by December 1, 2025.
SB 2965 prohibits the disannexation of territory from an emergency services district (ESD) by a
city if the city cannot meet or exceed the services currently being provided by an ESD, and creates
a process for an ESD to contest the removal of territory from an ESD once it is annexed by a city.
The process created by the bill compels a city and an ESD to binding arbitration if there is a
disagreement about whether the city can provide adequate emergency services to the area the city
seeks to remove from the ESD. There are areas in southern Denton where the City’s ETJ overlap
with Denton County ESDs. This bill requires minor modifications to department standard
operating procedures that were implemented by staff by September 1, 2025.
SB 1567 prohibits a city from adopting or enforcing a zoning ordinance that limits the number of
people who may occupy a dwelling unit based on age, familial status, occupation, relationship
25
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
status, or relation to each other. The Denton Development Code currently restricts the number of
non-related occupants in a single unit to four. A code amendment to remove the existing standards
will be necessary to comply with this new law and will be brought to Council for consideration on
October 21, 2025.
City Administration
Bill Summary Action Estimated
Council
Consideration
Estimated
Implementation
HB 132 Confidentiality of information used to prevent, detect, respond, or investigate a hostile act of a foreign
adversary.
Department process change N/A 9/1/2025
HB 149 Provides that a government agency
that makes available an artificial
intelligence (AI) system that is intended to interact with consumers must disclose to each consumer and limits the use of AI and biometric
data.
Department
process changes
N/A 9/1/2025
HB 762 Limitation of severance pay for city
employees and contractors.
New/Updated
contract
language
7/22/2025 8/19/2025
HB 1522 Relating to notice of a meeting held
under the open meetings law.
Department
process change
N/A 9/1/2025
HB 3112 Confidentiality of cybersecurity discussions Department Process Change N/A 9/1/2025
HB 3512 Requires municipal employees and officials to complete artificial
intelligence training.
New training N/A 8/31/2026
HB 4214 Public access to the mailing address and email to request public
information under the public information law.
New reporting requirement N/A 9/1/2025
HB 5331 Prohibits a municipality’s
cybersecurity insurance contract from circumventing state laws related to cybersecurity incident reporting.
New contract
language
N/A 9/1/2025
SB 1173 Increases the competitive bidding threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. Policy/code amendment 10/21/2025 10/21/2025
SB 1964 Requires local governments to complete a review of the New department process N/A Awaiting state rule making
26
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
deployment and use of a heightened
scrutiny artificial intelligence system.
SB 2570 Legal justification for the use of force with a less-lethal force weapon.
Department Process Change N/A 9/1/2025
HB 132 amends existing law to make confidential the information collected, assembled, or
maintained by or for a governmental entity for the purpose of preventing, detecting, or responding
to an act of terrorism or related criminal activity. This new law will modify potential responsive
documents subject to the Public Information Act. Staff is aware of this change and are in
compliance with the new law by September 1, 2025.
HB 149 provides that a government agency that makes available an artificial intelligence (AI)
system that is intended to interact with consumers must disclose to each consumer, before or at the
time of interaction, that the consumer is interacting with an AI system. It prohibits a government
agency from using an AI system for social scoring purposes and prohibits a government entity
from developing or deploying an AI system with biometric identifiers of individuals and the
gathering of images or other media for the purpose of uniquely identifying a specific individual, if
doing so, would infringe any right guaranteed under state or federal law. The City does utilize an
AI chat feature on the City website. Staff will update the feature to include a disclaimer to ensure
compliance with this new law. The City is not currently in the practice of utilizing social scoring
or utilizing AI with biometric identifiers that would infringe upon any state or federal rights
protections. Staff is conducting additional reviews to ensure all consumer facing AI is identified
and appropriately disclosed.
HB 762 limits the severance pay for government employment agreements and contracts entered
into after September 1, 2025. For agreements and contracts entered into after September 1, 2025,
severance pay for employees and contractors of political subdivisions is limited to no more than
20 weeks, excluding accrued paid time off or vacation leave. Additionally, the bill prohibits the
provision of severance pay if the employee or contractor is terminated for misconduct and requires
severance agreements to be posted on the subdivision’s website. The City’s current hiring practice
only provides for employment contracts with the four Council appointed positions, City Manager,
City Attorney, City Auditor, and Municipal Judge. Staff provided this information to Council on
July 22, 2025, and updated contracts were approved by Council on August 19, 2025.
HB 1522 modifies the Open Meetings Act to require the notice of a meeting to be posted at least
three business days prior to the scheduled date of the meeting, while the previous provision allowed
for 72-hour notice. Staff have modified the posting schedule for City Council meetings, as well as
all boards, commissions, and committees. It has been the practice for staff to post the City Council
meeting agenda by 5:00 pm on the Friday before the Tuesday meeting. With this new requirement,
27
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
City Council meeting agendas will be posted by 5:00 pm on the Wednesday before the meeting.
Attached is the posting guide shared with departments to ensure compliance with the new law.
HB 3112 modifies the Open Meetings Act to allow governmental bodies to convene in closed
session to deliberate matters related to cybersecurity, and/or measures intended to protect critical
infrastructure within the entity’s jurisdiction. Staff have added this provision to the existing
exemptions claimed under the Open Meetings Act and are in compliance with the new law.
HB 3512 requires local government employees and elected/appointed officials to complete a
certified artificial intelligence (AI) training program. It requires the Texas Department of
Information Resources (DIR) to certify at least five AI training programs for state and local
employees to utilize. DIR has not yet published the list of training programs and resources on their
public webpage. Once it is made available through DIR, staff will provide additional instructions
on the training as they incorporate it into the city’s existing training program.
HB 4214 requires governmental bodies to notify the attorney general of the mailing and electronic
address designated to receive written requests for public information and requires the attorney
general to create and maintain a publicly accessible database of these addresses. The notice must
be provided to the attorney general by October 1 of each year. The Attorney General’s Office has
communicated their intention to accept these notices once the database is in place. Staff will
maintain communication with the office and will implement a procedure to ensure annual
compliance.
HB 5331 provides that contract language in a cybersecurity insurance contract or contract for
goods and services that restricts a state agency or local government’s compliance with or otherwise
circumvents state laws that require notification of cybersecurity incidents to Texas DIR is void
and unenforceable. Staff are reviewing existing contracts to ensure compliance and will provide
standard language to this effect on future contracts, amendments, and renewals.
SB 1173 increases the competitive bidding threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. The competitive
bidding threshold is the threshold at which competitive bidding (procurement process) is required
for city purchases. Implementation will require revising the City’s procurement policy to reflect
the new threshold, which will require Council consideration. Staff will bring this item forward on
October 21, 2025.
SB 1964 requires local governments to complete a review of a heightened scrutiny artificial
intelligence system and provide the review to DIR. Additionally, it directs DIR to establish an AI
code of ethics for state agencies and local governments that procure, develop, or use a heightened
scrutiny AI system and develop standards for management and governance of these systems. Staff
are currently awaiting direction from DIR to ensure compliance with this new law. Staff will also
need to review any required notices that need to be provided under Section 2054.711,
28
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
SB 2570 provides that a peace officer or guard of a correctional facility who is engaged in the
discharge of their official duties is justified in using force with a less-lethal force weapon when
and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force was necessary to accomplish the
person’s duties, and if the person’s use of the weapon is in substantial compliance with the person’s
training. Staff are reviewing department training materials to ensure compliance and will make
amendments to the training as necessary.
Denton Municipal Electric (DME)
Bill Summary Action Estimated
Council
Consideration
Est.
Implementation
HB 144 Management, inspection, and reporting requirements for utility
distribution poles.
New reporting requirement N/A 1/1/2027
HB 145 Risk mitigation planning, liability, and reporting requirements for
electric providers.
New reporting requirement N/A 9/1/2025
HB 1584 Relating to the creation of a list of
priority facilities by electric
utilities.
Department
process change
N/A 9/1/2025
HB 1606 Relating to notice provided to a
retail electric customer of the procedure for requesting vegetation management near a transmission or distribution line.
Department
process change
N/A 8/31/2025
SB 1202 Third-party review of property development documents and inspections of improvements for
home backup power installations.
Website update N/A 9/1/2025
SB 1697 Relating to a customer guide to
home solar energy devices.
Department
process change
N/A Awaiting PUC
guide release
SB 1789 Relating to electric service quality and reliability; providing an
administrative penalty.
Department process change N/A Awaiting PUC standards
SB 1991 Relating to information regarding certain charges for services
provided by municipally owned utility systems.
Website update N/A 9/1/2025
29
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
HB 144 requires electric utilities that distribute energy to the public to submit to the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) a plan for the management and inspection of distribution poles the utility
owns, and no later than May 1 of each year, submit an update to the PUC detailing the entity’s
compliance with the plan’s objectives. This program must be adopted by the PUC by January 1,
2027, and staff will be prepared to comply upon its creation.
HB 145 requires electric utilities to insure or self-insure against potential damages the utility may
be liable for resulting from personal injury or property damage caused by wildfire. The bill
instructs that the PUC has the authority to approve the insurance plan. The bill also requires
utilities to submit a wildfire mitigation plan. DMEs existing vegetation management plan will
comply with the requirements of this new plan and will submit it to the PUC upon completion of
the rulemaking period.
HB 1584 requires electric utilities to maintain a list of priority facilities in its retail service area
and defines “priority facility” as anywhere considered crucial for public safety, including a
hospital, police station, fire station, critical water or wastewater facility, or jail. It requires a utility
to provide on its website a mechanism for a facility to request to be added to the priority list, as
well as requires the list to be provided to Texas Department of Emergency Management (TDEM)
upon request. DME maintains a list of critical infrastructure in the city and will prepare for its
inclusion on the city’s website in order to comply with the new requirements.
HB 1606 requires a municipally owned electric utility to periodically provide information about
the procedure for a customer to request vegetation management near a transmission line with bills
sent to retail customers. Staff will create additional materials to be included in utility bills that
comply with these new requirements.
SB 1202 allows authorized third parties to review development documents and conduct inspections
required by a regulatory authority to install home backup power generation. Within 15 days of
completing the review, the third party must provide notice to the regulatory authority of the results,
and in turn the regulatory authority issue approval within two business days of receiving the notice.
Implementation will require minor updates to the permitting process and updating the City’s
website with the new requirements.
SB 1697 requires the PUC to develop a guide to provide customers with information on solar
energy devices for a home and provides that an electric utility provider should include a link to the
guide on the utility’s website and provide information about accessing the guide on each utility
bill. Staff are currently awaiting the publishing of the PUC’s guide and will update the website and
append information regarding the guide to utility bills upon its release.
SB 1789 requires the PUC to develop standards for pole inspections, repairs, reinforcements, or
replacements, and requires electric utilities to report annually on pole maintenance efforts.
Additionally, it authorizes the PUC to take action when a utility fails to address degraded
30
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-067
infrastructure. Staff are currently awaiting the publishing of the PUC’s standards and will comply
with all requirements including annual reporting.
SB 1991 requires a municipally owned utility to publish terms and conditions of operating,
maintenance, replacement, or improvement charges on the utility’s website within 30 days of the
adoption of a change. Currently, rates and descriptions are posted within the timeframe required,
and this practice will continue. Staff will review existing procedures and will modify posting
language to comply with the new law.
CONCLUSION: City staff have conducted a thorough review of the applicable legislation and are actively working
to ensure timely and compliant implementation. Where necessary, items will be brought forward
for Council consideration in accordance with the timelines outlined in this report. Staff will
continue to monitor rulemaking processes and provide updates as additional guidance becomes
available from state agencies.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Public Meeting Posting Schedule
STAFF CONTACT:
Kristi Fogle Chief of Staff Kristi.Fogle@cityofdenton.com (940) 349-8565
REQUESTOR: Staff Initiated
STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE REPORT: 40
PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS: City Manager’s Office, Legal
31
Three (3) Business Day Posting Schedule
Effective September 1, 2025 all agendas must be posted three (3) business days prior to
the scheduled meeting.
Business days are Monday through Friday except for City of Denton recognized holidays.
Holidays* that don’t count as business days are as follows:
New Years Day – January 1
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday – Observed 3rd Monday in January
Memorial Day – Observed last Monday in May
Juneteenth National Independence Day – June 19
Independence Day – July 4
Labor Day – First Monday in September
Veterans Day – November 11
Thanksgiving Day – 4th Thursday in November
Day after Thanksgiving Day – 4th Friday in November
Christmas Eve – December 24
Christmas Day – December 25
*Holidays occurring on Saturday will be observed on the preceding Friday and holidays
occurring on Sunday will be observed on the following Monday per City of Denton Policy
107.2.
32
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
33
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.Linder@cityofdenton.com
(940)-349-8942
PARTICIPATING DEPARTMENTS: Engineering
STAFF TIME TO COMPLETE REPORT: 6 hours
34
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM 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 damagereduction projects that have not previously been specifically authorizedby Congress and are not part of a larger project.
•Projects may be structural (e.g., levees, flood walls, diversionchannels, pumping plants and bridge modifications) or non-structural
(e.g., floodproofing, relocation of structures and flood warningsystems).
•Authority is provided by Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of1948 (P.L. 80-858), as amended, also referred to as Section 205 underthe 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 thefeasibility 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.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Questions? Contact your local USACE District:
https://usace.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7344e62432694199af7790aa47a32fdd
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.
35
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.
36
I e 1; = X t: a $= = tA Sc ti : a n C e W : : i: aol; iTa n1:?h t a S W::::p\ rove d by :: =IT : it :
vote
Aye Nay Abstain Absent
Mayor Gerard Hudspeth:
Vicki Byrd, District 1 :
Brian Beck. District 2:
J
J
J
J
1/
1/
-Z
Paul Meltzer. District 3 :
Joe Holland. District 4:
Brandon Chase McGee, At Large Place 5 :
Chris Watts, At Large Place 6:
PASSED AND APPROVED this the S t\ day of fIAnk _, 2024.
X/##_„:
ATTEST:
JESUS SALAZAR, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
MACK REINWAND. CITY ATTORNEY
a.. DIgItally sIgned by SIan Kdler
S U 111SIIII IIIa n ::: :::i:n!I=::q:baT: :1:t =ers and
GraIj>$ a+Gnaal a>vernment.
I,„. Ke Ier aT;Iii?};TIkI;“""
37
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
38
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 st 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
39
Sponsor shall provide the full amount of such funds to the Government in accordance with
Article III.C.
2. No later than August 1 st 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 st 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 ofsolicitations, 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.
40
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-
41
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, US AED, 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
42
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
43
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 - CONFIDENTLALITY
To the extent permitted by the laws governing each party, 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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CITY OF DENTON
BY:
Calvin A. Kroeger
Colonel, U.S. Army
Commanding
BY:
Sara Hensley
City Manager
44
DATE :DATE:
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Closeout Report
CAP – Cooper Creek, Denton, Texas,
Section 205
Fort Worth District, Southwestern
Division
February 2025
54
(NOTE: This page intentionally left blank)
55
Closeout Report
CAP – Cooper Creek, Denton, Texas, Section 205
Fort Worth District, Southwestern Division
February 2025
56
(NOTE: This page intentionally left blank)
57
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.
58
(NOTE: This page intentionally left blank)
59
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
60
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
61
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
62
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
Frequency Event) ........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 9 - Flood Inundation at the 0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (500-year
Frequency Interval) ..................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 10 - Location of alternative 2A1 ....................................................................................... 33
Figure 11 - Location of alternative 2C1 ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 12 - Location of alternative 2D1 ....................................................................................... 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
63
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
64
(NOTE: This page intentionally left blank)
65
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: 97°07'25" 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.
Figure 1 - Cooper Creek Study Area
66
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.
67
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.
68
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
69
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.
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.
70
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).
71
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
(48121C0360G) (Figure 5). Immediately in the project area, floodplain characteristics are
restricted on either side by residential housing communities (Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) 2023).
72
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).
73
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.
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 (O3), 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
74
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.
75
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 Scientific Name
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
76
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
Common Name 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
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 virginianus Nine-banded
armadillo
Dasypus novemcinctus
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus
floridanus Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus
Woodchuck Marmota monax Beaver Castor canadensis
77
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
Species Name Status Habitat Description Suitable Habitat in the
Action Area
Mammals
Tricolored Bat
Perimyotis subflavus PE
Summer habitat: wide variety of
forested/wooded habitats for
roosting. Roost among leaves of
live or recently dead deciduous
hardwood trees, but may also be
found in Spanish moss, pine
trees, and occasionally
manmade structures.
Winter habitat (hibernacula):
caves or abandoned mines.
Summer Habitat: Yes
Winter Habitat: No
Birds
Whooping crane
Grus americana E
Dense marshes and wetlands
with nest sites found primarily
located in shallow diatom ponds
that contain bulrush. During
migration, whooping cranes use
a variety of habitats; however,
wetland mosaics appear to be
the most suitable.
No -Urban area with
sparse forested riparian
area lacking
wetlands/marshes
Piping plover
Charadrius melodus T Coastal shorelines and open
mudflats and sandy areas.
No- Open areas around
the creek are grassy and
disturbed. Lack sandy
areas.
78
Species Name Status Habitat Description Suitable Habitat in the
Action Area
Rufa red knot
Calidris canutus rufa T
Wintering and migration habitats
are muddy or sandy coastal
areas, specifically, bays and
estuaries, tidal flats, and
unimproved tidal inlets with sand
spits, islets, shoals, and
sandbars
No - shorelines are
urbanized and surrounded
by patches of Riparian
Forest
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).
79
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 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.
80
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
81
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.
82
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)
Annual Exceedance
Probability
0.5
AEP
0.2
AEP
0.1
AEP
0.04
AEP
0.02
AEP
0.01
AEP
0.005
AEP
0.002
AEP
Depth Relative to First Floor Elevations
Mean 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
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
83
Figure 8 - Flood Inundation at the 0.10 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (10-year Frequency
Event)
84
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.
85
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.
86
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
87
• 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.
88
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
89
• 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
Basins
Ineffective existing outlet structures already
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
90
Measure Evaluation
Realign Channel B - Create Meander*s Constrained by development on both sides of
the channel
Levee or Floodwall
Constraint by development on both sides of
the channel and there would not be enough
room to construct
Tunnel
Flood damages would not support positive
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
Warning System
Would not address the objectives and due to
proximity of structures to Creek and flashy
nature of flooding, would not allow ample
time to evacuate
Rezoning and Repurposing Areas in the
Vicinity of Cooper Creek
Not be practical as land to either side of
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
91
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
improvements Carried Forward
Alternative 4 – Detention Basin and
nonstructural measure Carried Forward
Alternative 5 – Detention Basin and Bridge
Culvert Modifications Carried Forward
Alternative 6 – Bridge Culvert Modifications
alone Carried Forward
Alternative 7 – Bridge culvert modification
and a nonstructural measure Carried Forward
Alternative 8 – Channel Improvements and
Bridge culvert modifications Carried Forward
Alternative 9 – Roadway improvements and a
nonstructural measure Carried Forward
Alternative 10 – Channel Improvements
alone
Incomplete solution, would require either
modifications to the bridge culvert or
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,
92
Alternative Evaluation
Alternative 13 – Raising structures in place
alone Carried Forward
Alternative 14 – Roadway improvements
alone
Incomplete Solution and outside USACE
authority
Alternative 15 – Channel Improvements and
nonstructural measure
Incomplete solution, would require either
modifications to the bridge culvert or
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.
93
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.
94
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
improvements Carried Forward
Alternative 4 – Detention Basin and
nonstructural measure
This combination would not produce
significant additional benefits over the non-
structural alone.
Alternative 5 – Detention Basin and Bridge
Culvert Modifications Carried Forward
Alternative 6 – Bridge Culvert Modifications
alone
If you increase capacity at crossing, it is still
limited to capacity in channel
Alternative 7 – Bridge culvert modification
and a nonstructural measure
Would effectively become non-structural
alternative as bridge culver in effective.
Alternative 8 – Channel Improvements and
Bridge culvert modifications Carried Forward
Alternative 9 – Roadway improvements and a
nonstructural measure
Likely would not fully within USACE authority.
Would effectively become non-structural
alternative as bridge culver in effective
Alternative 11 – Buyouts alone Carried Forward
Alternative 13 – Raising structures in place
alone Carried Forward
Alternative 16 – Bridge culvert modifications,
channel improvements and a nonstructural
measure
This combination would not produce
significant additional benefits over the non-
structural alone. .
Alternative 17 – Detention Basin, Bridge
culvert modifications, channel improvements Carried Forward
Alternative 18 – Detention Basin, Bridge
culvert modifications, channel improvements
and a nonstructural measure
This combination would not produce
significant additional benefits over the non-
structural alone. .
* Alternatives 2,3,4, 5, 8, 16, 17 and 18 include NNB features in the form of native plantings.
95
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
96
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.
97
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.
98
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.
99
Figure 12 - Location of alternative 2D1
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.
100
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.
101
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.
102
Figure 15 - Layout of proposed bridge improvements for alternative 5A1
103
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.
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).
104
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.
105
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)
Alternative Project Cost
Alternative 1: No Action $0
Alternative 2A (2A1): Detention above
Sherman $3,043,000
106
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
Alternative 11: Buyouts
(50YR) $55,781,000
(25YR) $39,308,000
(10YR) $22,881,000
Alternative 13: Raising Structures in Place
(50YR) $34,606,000
(25YR) $26,640,000
(10YR) $16,914,000
Alternative 17 (17A1): Detention (2C1) +
bridge improvement (8A1) + channelization
(8A1)
$10,608,000
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)
Alternative Costs
First Costs Annual Costs
Damages Reduced
(Mean)
Net Benefits (Mean)
BCR (Mean)
Alt 2A1 $3,043,000 $134,474 $12,874 ($121,600) 0.10
107
Alternative Costs
Alt 2C1 $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
YR)
$34,606,000 $1,540,667 $752,000 ($788,667) 0.49
Elevation
(25YR)
$26,460,000 $1,176,031 $679,055 ($496,976) 0.58
Elevation (10
YR)
$16,914,000 $751,753 $542,000 ($209,753) 0.72
Buyout (50
YR)
$55,781,254 $2,200,325 $752,000 ($1,448,325) 0.34
Buyout (25
YR)
$39,307,987 $1,550,527 $679,055 ($871,472) 0.44
Buyout (10
YR)
$22,880,759 $902,545 $542,000 ($360,545) 0.60
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).
108
Table 11 - Cooper Creek National Criteria Evaluation
Alternative Complete Effective (Damages
Reduced)
Efficient (Net
Benefits) Acceptable
Alternative 1: No Action N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alternative 2A (2A1):
Detention above Sherman YES Least
effective No, ($121,600) YES
Alternative 2B
(2C1):Detention above Stuart
(elevation 637)
YES Effective No, ($88,911)
YES, may require
mitigation for
proposed species
Alternative 2C (2D1):
Detention above Stuart
(elevation 634)
YES Effective No, ($119,638)
YES, may require
mitigation for
proposed species
Alternative 3: (3A1)
Detention (2C1) +
channelization at Windsor
Drive
YES Effective No, ($81,055)
YES, may require
mitigation for
proposed species
Alternative 5 (5A1):
Detention (2C1) + Bridge
Improvements at Sherman
Drive
YES Less
effective
No,
($1,350,718)
YES, may require
mitigation for
proposed species
Alternative 8 (8A1):
Channelization and bridge
improvement at Windsor Dr.
YES Effective No, ($101,113) YES
Alternative 11: Buyouts
(50YR, 25 YR and 10 YR) YES
Most
effective
More
effective
More
effective
No,
($1,448,325)
No,($871,472)
No, ($360,545)
YES
Alternative 13: Raising
Structures in Place (50YR,
25YR, and 10YR)
YES
Most
effective
More
effective
More
effective
No, ($788,667)
No ($496,976)
No,( $209,753)
YES
109
Alternative Complete
Effective
(Damages Reduced)
Efficient (Net Benefits) Acceptable
Alternative 17 (17A1):
Detention (2C1) + bridge
improvement (8A1) +
channelization (8A1)
YES Effective No, ($149,151)
YES, may require
mitigation for
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 NED RED EQ OSE
Alternative 1: No Action N/A N/A N/A N/A
Alternative 2A (2A1): Detention
above Sherman BCR=0.10 Temp benefits
construction None
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 2B (2C1):Detention
above Stuart (elevation 637) BCR=0.77 Temp benefits
construction
May need
mitigation
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 2C (2D1): Detention
above Stuart (elevation 634) BCR=0.74 Temp benefits
construction
May need
mitigation
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 3: (3A1) Detention (2C1)
+ channelization at Windsor Drive BCR=0.81 Temp benefits
construction
May need
mitigation
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 5 (5A1): Detention (2C1)
+ channelization at Sherman Drive BCR=0.15 Temp benefits
construction
May need
mitigation
Lower
risk
HHS
110
Alternative NED RED EQ OSE
Alternative 8 (8A1): Channelization
and bridge improvement at Windsor
Dr.
BCR=0.46 Temp benefits
construction None
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 11: Buyouts
BCR=0.34
BCR=0.44
BCR=0.60
Temp benefits
construction None
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 13: Raising Structures in
Place
BCR=0.49
BCR=0.58
BCR=0.72
Temp benefits
construction None
Lower
risk
HHS
Alternative 17 (17A1): Detention
(2C1) + bridge improvement (8A1)
+ channelization (8A1)
BCR=0.69 Temp benefits
construction
May need
mitigation
Lower
risk
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.
111
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.
DATE CALVIN A. KROEGER
COL, EN
Commanding
11 MARCH 2025
112
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/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.nrcs.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.nrcs.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
113
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.
114
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
115
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.C United States Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Service
116
Appendix A: Cost Engineering
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
117
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.
118
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%
119
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:0
LOCATION:Cooper Creek
This Estimate reflects the scope and schedule in report;Report Name and date
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 $212
CONTRACT COST TOTALS:$2,557
v Alt 2D1
02 RELOCATIONS $288
06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES $38
XXXXXX
Civil Works Work Breakdown Structure
120
08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES
09 CHANNELS & CANALS
19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES $7,873
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS:$8,199
01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $677
30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,42631CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,148
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 $1,134
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 $1,516
CONTRACT COST TOTALS:$15,739
121
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 $47531CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $220
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 $1,204
CONTRACT COST TOTALS:$14,429
v Non-Structural 50 yr
02 RELOCATIONS $15,794
06 FISH & WILDLIFE FACILITIES
08 ROADS, RAILROADS & BRIDGES
122
09 CHANNELS & CANALS
19 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTALS:$15,794
01 LANDS AND DAMAGES $37,876
30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,52931CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,204
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 $2,52931CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,204
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 $1,204
CONTRACT COST TOTALS:$23,578
123
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 $1,204
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 $2,52931CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,204
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
124
30 PLANNING, ENGINEERING & DESIGN $2,52931CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,204
CONTRACT COST TOTALS:$14,733
125
Appendix B: Environmental
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
126
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.
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).
127
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).
128
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.
129
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).
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
130
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.
Figure 5: Cooper Creek Wetland Map
131
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 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
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.
132
Table 2. Common Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area
Common Name 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 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
virginianus
Nine-banded
armadillo
Dasypus 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.
133
Table 3. Federally Listed Species identified on the IPaC
Species Name Status Habitat Description Suitable Habitat in the Action Area
Mammals
Tricolored Bat
Perimyotis subflavus
PE Summer habitat: wide variety of forested/wooded habitats for
roosting. Roost among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous
hardwood trees, but may also be found in Spanish moss, pine
trees, and occasionally manmade structures.
Winter habitat (hibernacula): caves or abandoned mines.
Summer Habitat: Yes
Winter Habitat: No
Birds
Whooping crane Grus americana E Dense marshes and wetlands with nest sites found primarily
located in shallow diatom ponds that contain bulrush. During
migration, whooping cranes use a variety of habitats; however
wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable.
No -Urban area with sparse
forested riparian area lacking
wetlands/marshes
Piping plover
Charadrius melodus
T Coastal shorelines and open mudflats and sandy areas. No- Open areas around the
creek are grassy and
disturbed. Lack sandy areas.
Rufa red knot
Calidris canutus rufa
T Wintering and migration habitats are muddy or sandy coastal
areas, specifically, bays and estuaries, tidal flats, and
unimproved tidal inlets with sand spits, islets, shoals, and
sandbars
No - shorelines are
urbanized and surrounded
by patches of Riparian
Forest
Reptiles
Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii PT Freshwater rivers and lakes with deep floors. No – generally too shallow
Insects
Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus C Monarchs need healthy and abundant milkweed embedded
within diverse nectaring habitat. Many monarchs use a variety of
roosting trees along the fall migration route. Although monarch
butterfly can occur within the project areas, they will not be
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.
No – grassy riparian area
with potential for host plant is
regularly disturbed and
mowed.
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.
134
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
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
135
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.
Figure 6. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool Results for the Cooper Creek
Project Area.
136
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 (O3),
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.
137
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.
138
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.
139
•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
140
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
141
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
142
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
143
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
144
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 plover 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
145
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
146
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.
4.2.17 Alternative 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:
147
•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.
148
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.nrcs.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.nrcs.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.
149
United States Geological Survey, Geologic Atlas of Texas 2024.
https://webapps.usgs.gov/txgeology/ Accessed July 3, 2024.
150
Ƒ
11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
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:
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 Serviceµs Arlington ESFO DKey, you
determined the proposed Action will have ²No Effect³ on the following species:
Species Listing Status Determination
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)Threatened No effect
Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)Threatened No effect
Whooping Crane (Grus americana)Endangered No effect
Consultation Status
Thank you for informing the Service of your ²No Effect³ 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
151
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 2 of 7
Ƒ
Ƒ
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus 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 Serviceµs responsibilities under the ESA include evaluating species that
have been petitioned to be listed or are candidates for listing under the ESA. These ²at risk³
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://ecos.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://fwsepermits.servicenowservices.com/
fws/.
152
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 3 of 7
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.
153
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 4 of 7
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/@33.247411299999996,-97.12428953724933,14z
154
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 5 of 7
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
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
Does the proposed project involve the use of manned or unmanned aircraft (e.g., airplanes,
helicopters, drones, balloons)?
No
Is the action authorized, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency?
Yes
Are you the Federal agency or designated non-federal representative?
Yes
Is the project a communications tower licensed or regulated by the Federal
Communications Commission?
No
Is the lead federal agency for the project Housing and Urban Development?
No
Is this a wind energy project ?
No
Is this a solar energy project ?
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the piping plover AOI?
Automatically answered
Yes
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the red knot AOI?
Automatically answered
Yes
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the peppered chub critical habitat?
Automatically answered
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the whooping crane AOI?
Automatically answered
Yes
155
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 6 of 7
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
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: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70202378.
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the sharpnose shiner critical habitat?
Automatically answered
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the smalleye shiner critical habitat?
Automatically answered
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the black-capped vireo range?
Automatically answered
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the Texas screwstem range?
Automatically answered
No
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the western chicken turtle range?
Automatically answered
Yes
[Semantic] Does the project intersect the Kisatchie painted crayfish range?
Automatically answered
No
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
156
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153033255 11/20/2024 21:15:29 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 04/18/2024 7 of 7
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
157
11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
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:
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 speciesµ 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 subflavus) Proposed
Endangered
May affect
Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area
158
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 2 of 11
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
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
²May Affect.³ A ²May Affect³ 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 ²May Affect³
determination are anticipated to result in adverse impacts to listed species. These projects may
result in a ²No Effect³, ²May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect³, or ²May Affect, Likely to
Adversely Affect³ 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.
159
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 3 of 11
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/@33.247411299999996,-97.12428953724933,14z
160
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 4 of 11
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DETERMINATION KEY RESULT
Based on the answers provided, the proposed Action is consistent with a determination of ²may
affect³ for a least one species covered by this determination key.
QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW
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
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
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
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 ´yesµ 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
Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a
Federal agency in whole or in part?
Yes
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
161
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 5 of 11
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
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
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
Is the lead federal action agency the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)?
No
[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
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
Will the action cause effects to a bridge?
Note: Covered bridges should be considered as bridges in this question.
No
Will the action result in effects to a culvert or tunnel at any time of year?
No
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 USFWSµ 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
162
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 6 of 11
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Does the action include the intentional exclusion of bats from a building or structure?
Note: Exclusion is conducted to deny batsµ 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 ²Yes.³ Answer ²No³ 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 ²National Wildlife Control
Operators Association bats³). Also see the White-Nose Syndrome Response Team's guide for bat control in
structures.
No
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
Will the action cause construction of one or more new roads open to the public?
For federal actions, answer ´yesµ 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
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 ´yesµ 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
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 ´yesµ 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
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.org/knowledge-library/nsf-ansi-
standard-60-drinking-water-treatment-chemicals-health-effects
No
163
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 7 of 11
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
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
Will the action include drilling or blasting?
No
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
Will the proposed action involve the use of herbicides or other pesticides other than
herbicides (e.g., fungicides, insecticides, or rodenticides)?
No
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 USFWSµ 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
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 USFWSµ 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
Will the action include tree cutting or other means of knocking down or bringing down
trees, tree topping, or tree trimming?
Yes
Will the proposed action occur exclusively in an already established and currently
maintained utility right-of-way?
Yes
164
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 8 of 11
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Will the proposed action result in the cutting of entire trees outside of the currently
maintained utility right-of-way?
Yes
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
Does the project intersect with the 0- 9.9% forest density category?
Automatically answered
Yes
Does the project intersect with the 10.0- 19.9% forest density category map?
Automatically answered
Yes
Does the project intersect with the 20.0- 29.9% forest density category map?
Automatically answered
No
Does the project intersect with the 30.0- 100% forest density category map?
Automatically answered
No
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
Does the action area intersect the tricolored bat species list area?
Automatically answered
Yes
[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
Has a presence/probable absence bat survey targeting the tricolored bat and following the
Serviceµs Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Survey Guidelines been
conducted within the project area?
No
165
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 9 of 11
39.
40.
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
Do you have any documents that you want to include with this submission?
No
166
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 10 of 11
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
167
Project code: 2025-0022435 IPaC Record Locator: 333-153035270 11/20/2024 21:31:43 UTC
DKey Version Publish Date: 11/07/2024 11 of 11
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
168
11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
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:
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:
169
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
2 of 14
1.
2.
3.
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 reTuirements 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:
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.
May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate determination when a
proposed actionµs 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.
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
170
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
3 of 14
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 projectµs 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
Serviceµs 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
171
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
4 of 14
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
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
172
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
5 of 14
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/@33.247411299999996,-97.12428953724933,14z
Counties: Denton County, Texas
173
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
6 of 14
1.
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
Fisheries , 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.
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.
1
174
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
7 of 14
Ƒ
Ƒ
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515
Proposed
Endangered
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
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://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039
Threatened
Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa
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
Threatened
Whooping Crane Grus americana
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://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Endangered
REPTILES
NAME STATUS
Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochelys temminckii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4658
Proposed
Threatened
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
175
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
8 of 14
1.
2.
3.
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 Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or
golden eagles, or their habitats , 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".
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
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
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
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
Breeds Sep 1 to
Jul 31
1
2
3
176
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
9 of 14
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
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 ()
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.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
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-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-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
177
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
10 of 14
1.
2.
3.
MIGRATORY BIRDS
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats 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".
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
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.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10561
Breeds
elsewhere
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
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
Breeds Sep 1 to
Jul 31
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406
Breeds Mar 15
to Aug 25
Least Tern Sternula antillarum antillarum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/11919
Breeds Apr 25
to Sep 5
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
1
2
3
178
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
11 of 14
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9477
Breeds Mar 10
to Oct 15
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561
Breeds
elsewhere
Prairie Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8833
Breeds Feb 1 to
Jul 31
Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9439
Breeds Apr 1 to
Jul 31
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8964
Breeds
elsewhere
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 ()
179
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
12 of 14
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
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.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
American Golden-
plover
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Least Tern
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Little Blue Heron
BCC - BCR
Pectoral Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Prairie Loggerhead
Shrike
BCC - BCR
Prothonotary
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Sprague's Pipit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
180
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
13 of 14
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
Ƒ
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-eagles-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
PFO1A
181
Project code: 2025-0022435 11/20/2024 21:12:14 UTC
14 of 14
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
182
Appendix C: Economics
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
183
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
184
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 (NSI22), 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 NSI22, 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.1
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
1 A search map with appraisal values is available at: https://www.dentoncad.com/maps
185
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 NSI22 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)
Table 1 Structure Values Reported in the USACE National Structure Inventory (2022) for the Cooper Creek Impact Area
Damage Category Count NSI Structure Value Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
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 $189,600 $23,930 $156,821 $225,840
Industrial 1 $226,000 $226,000 $0 $226,000 $226,000
186
Damage Category Count NSI Structure Value Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
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
Damage Category Count Depreciated Replacement Value Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
Residential 655 $86,364,000 $131,853 $63,087 $42,498 $786,948
Commercial 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
187
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 Modeled Damages (monetary values in $millions)
Annual Exceedance Probability 0.5 AEP 0.2 AEP 0.1 AEP 0.04 AEP 0.02 AEP 0.01 AEP 0.005 AEP 0.002 AEP
Depth Relative to First Floor Elevations
Mean (0.80) (0.40) (0.20) 0.06 0.24 0.41 0.52 0.64 Standard Deviation 0.00 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.79 0.86 Maximum 0.16 1.06 1.48 1.98 2.54 3.07 3.57 4.23 Minimum (1.82) (1.93) (1.92) (1.82) (1.89) (1.51) (1.46) (1.95)
Single Event Damages ($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
188
Figure 2 Flood Inundation at the 0.10 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (10-year frequency interval)
189
Figure 3 Flood Inundation at the 0.002 Annual Exceedance Probability Event (500-year frequency interval)
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
190
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.
191
Table 4 Single Event Flood Depths and Damages for Structures with Modeled Damages
Alternative
Implementation Costs Expected Annual Damages Reduced (Benefits)
Net Benefits (Mean)
Benefit to Cost Ratios
First Costs Annual Costs Mean 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Mean 1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile
Alt 2A1 $3,043,000 $134,474 $12,874 $6,670 $11,815 $20,385 ($121,600) 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.15
Alt 2C1 $8,662,000 $390,113 $301,202 $49,486 $117,290 $340,197 ($88,911) 0.77 0.13 0.30 0.87
Alt 2D1 $10,112,000 $455,417 $335,779 $49,898 $128,643 $370,760 ($119,638) 0.74 0.11 0.28 0.81
Alt 3A1 $9,194,000 $416,833 $335,778 $61,178 $139,903 $380,235 ($81,055) 0.81 0.15 0.34 0.91
Alt 5A1 $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
Alt 8A1 $4,225,000 $186,708 $85,595 $21,443 $59,219 $114,615 ($101,113) 0.46 0.11 0.32 0.61
Alt 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 ($1,448,325) 0.34 0.14 0.24 0.43
Buyout (25 YR) $39,307,987 $1,550,527 $679,055 $242,017 $503,097 $859,646 ($871,472) 0.44 0.16 0.32 0.55
Buyout (10 YR) $22,880,759 $902,545 $542,000 $286,271 $454,538 $697,080 ($360,545) 0.60 0.32 0.50 0.77
192
Appendix D: Hydraulics and
Hydrology
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
193
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.
194
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).
195
Figure 2 NFS Proposed Study Areas
Figure 3 Structures located within 25-year Floodplain between Sherman Drive and Stream CC-2
196
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 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the 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).
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).
197
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)
198
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).
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
199
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).
200
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.
201
Table 2 Final Percent Urban Values
Subbasin Area (sq. 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
202
Table 3 Final Percent Impervious Values
Subbasin Area (sq. 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
203
Figure 7 Urbanization Changes from Existing to Future Conditions
204
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
205
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
Name
Percent
Sand
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(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 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
206
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
Name
Percent
Sand
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(in/hr)
Initial
(in)
Constant
(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 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 79 1.04 0.12 0.87 0.09 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.
207
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
208
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
Subbasin
Area
(sq. mi.)
Length
(mi)
Length
to
Centroid
(mi.)
Weighted
Stream
Slope
(ft/mi)
Existing
Lag
Time
(hrs)
Future
Lag
Time
(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
209
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)
Location
Area
(sq. mi.) 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500
Below Regional Pond 1 0.35 160 190 210 230 240 250 270 290
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
210
Figure 8 Peak Discharge Frequency Curve for Cooper Creek at Sherman Drive
211
Figure 9 Peak Discharge Frequency Curve for Cooper Creek below Stream CC-2
212
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).
213
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.
214
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.
215
Figure 12 NLCD land use types and Manning’s n assignment
Figure 13 NFS Land Use Type and Manning’s n assignments
216
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
NLCD Land Use Description
Assigned
Manning's n
Value
Minimum
(2D User's
Manual)
Maximum
(2D User's
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/2D 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.
217
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
218
Figure 14 Plan and Profile View of Windsor Dr. SA/2D Connection
219
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
Alternative Description
HEC-RAS
Plan Files
(.pXX)
WOP1 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
3A1 Detention (2C1) + channelization at Windsor Dr.
03 - 08,
30,31
5A1 Detention (2C1) and bridge improvement at Sherman Dr. 40 - 47
8A1 Channelization and bridge improvement at Windsor Dr.
25 - 29, 71 -
73
17A1 Detention (2C1) + bridge improvement (8A1) + channelization (8A1) 32 - 39
220
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.
221
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.
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.
222
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.
223
Figure 17 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2A1 (25-year event)
Figure 18 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2A1 (100-yr event)
224
Figure 19 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2A1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 20 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2A1 (Blue) floodplain
225
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.
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
226
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.
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.
227
Figure 23 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2C1 (25-year event)
Figure 24 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2C1 (100-year)
228
Figure 25 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2C1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 26 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2C1 (Blue) floodplain
229
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.
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
230
of new fluvial floodplain area (Nature Based Solution) and native grass plantings. A sample section of
this alternative is included in Figure 28.
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 2D1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events.
231
Figure 29 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2D1 (25-year event)
Figure 30 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 2D1 (100-year event)
232
Figure 31 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2D1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 32 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 2D1 (Blue) floodplain
233
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.
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.
234
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.
235
Figure 35 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 3A1 (25-year event)
Figure 36 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 3A1 (100-year event)
236
Figure 37 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 3A1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 38 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 3A1 (Blue) floodplain
237
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.
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.
238
Figure 40 Layout of proposed bridge improvements for alternative 5A1
239
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 5A1. Figure 44 and Figure 45 compare the without-project floodplain and the alternative
5A1 floodplain for the 25-year and 100-year events.
240
Figure 42 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 5A1 (25-year event)
Figure 43 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 5A1 (100-year event)
241
Figure 44 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 5A1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 45 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 5A1 (Blue) floodplain
242
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.
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.
243
Figure 47 Sample section for alternative 5A1
244
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.
245
Figure 49 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 8A1 (25-year event)
Figure 50 Water surface elevation reduction for alternative 8A1 (100-year event)
246
Figure 51 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 8A1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 52 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 8A1 floodplain
247
17A1 (Detention (2C1)+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.
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.
248
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.
249
Figure 55 Water surface elevation reductions for alternative 17A1 (25-year event)
Figure 56 Water surface elevation reductions for alternative 17A1 (100-year event)
250
Figure 57 25-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 17A1 (Blue) floodplain
Figure 58 100-year event without-project (Purple) and alternative 17A1 (Blue) floodplain
251
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
252
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
NjI3NjYyLjE3MjEzMTE2MTA.*_ga_CGH7RBEG6M*MTcyMTMxMTYxMC4xLjAuMTcyMTMxMTYx
MC4wLjAuMA. 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.
253
Appendix E: Civil Engineering
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
254
Engineering
1. General
A feasibility study took place to prepare a total of seven alternaves in Denton, Texas
within the Cooper Creek channel. Due to being a feasibility study, no engineering plan
sheets were prepared. All structural alternaves were found to have sub 1.0 benefit cost
raos (BCR).
2. Civil Design
Alternave 2A1 (Detenon Above Sherman Dr., Elev. 638 Feet)
This alternave is located upstream of Sherman Drive and consists of
approximately 4,800 cubic yards of earthwork to be-er channelize flow and
reduce water surface elevaon through increased cross-seconal area. The cut
widens the channel by roughly 80 feet with a bo-om elevaon of 638 feet. This
alternave would include engineering with nature features that include nave
planngs that can be found in Table 4.1. This alternave was found to have a
BCR under 1.0.
Alternave 2C1 Detenon above Stuart Rd, Elev. 637 Feet)
This alternave is located upstream of Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre
detenon pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with
the bank along the creek terminang at an elevaon of 640.5 feet that would
act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow condions and be
lined with 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric on both sides of “weir”. All other
sides would meet exisng elevaons. The bo-om of the detenon pond would
255
have a maximum elevaon of 637 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the
removal of large number of trees that would not require replanng and 106,000
cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill. The detenon
pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24” reinforced
concrete pipe that ou;lows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of
the detenon pond. An exisng 12” PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper
Creek and would require either the relocaon of the line or the invert elevaons
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 alternave would include engineering with nature features
that include nave planngs within the detenon pond and can be found in
Table 4.1. This alternave was found to have a BCR under 1.0.
256
Alternave 2D1 (Detenon above Stuart Rd, Elev. 634 Feet)
This alternave is located upstream of Stuart Drive in and consists of a 9.3acre
detenon pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with
the bank along the creek terminang at an elevaon of 639.8 feet that would
act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow condions and be
lined with 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric on both sides of “weir”. All other
sides would meet exisng elevaons. The bo-om of the detenon pond would
have a maximum elevaon of 634 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the
removal of large number of trees that would not require replanng and 151,000
cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill. The detenon
pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24” reinforced
concrete pipe that ou;lows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of
the detenon pond. An exisng 12” PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper
Creek and would require either the relocaon of the line or the invert elevaons
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 alternave would include engineering with nature features
that include nave planngs within the detenon pond and can be found in
Table 4.1. This alternave was found to have a BCR under 1.0.
257
Alternave 3A1 (Detenon (2C1) + Channelizaon at Windsor Dr.)
This alternave includes the detenon from alternave 2C1 and channelizaon
around Windsor Rd. The channelizaon included approximately 850 feet of grass
lined channel improvement with a bo-om width of 30 feet and side slopes of 3
horizontal to 1 vercal. The total excavaon amount for this alternave is
110,400 cubic yards. All required construcon from Alternave 2C1 would take
place within this alternave. In addion to this, Windsor drive includes mulple
exisng ulies 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 alternave 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 alternave requires relocaon of a 15” ducle
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 exisng
power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require
reconstrucon with 12” asphalt pavement. Channel slope stabilizaon, such as
5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric, would be installed to reduce erosion aAer
bare earthwork along the channel sides in addion to nave planngs such as
those found in table 4.1. This alternave was found to have a BCR under 1.0.
258
Alternave 5A1 (Detenon 2C1) and Bridge improvements at Sherman Dr.)
Alternave 5A1 involves an exisng crossing located at Sherman Drive and the
previous alternave 2C1. The bridge opening would be widened to 2 40’ spans
with wingwalls to increase flow under the bridge from a cross seconal area of
210 square feet to 640 square feet. This alternave requires relocaon of a 12”
ducle 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
exisng power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge would require
repair with 12” asphalt pavement. The detenon locaon is located upstream of
Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre detenon pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be
graded on all sides of the pond with the bank along the creek terminang at an
elevaon of 640.5 feet that would act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond
under heavy flow condions and be lined with 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric
on both sides of “weir”. All other sides would meet exisng elevaons. The
bo-om of the detenon pond would have a maximum elevaon of 637 feet.
Clearing and grubbing would require the removal of large number of trees that
would not require replanng and 106,000 cubic yards of earthwork that would
be hauled to a local landfill. The detenon pond would be expected to fully drain
within 24 hours through a 24” reinforced concrete pipe that ou;lows back into
Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of the detenon pond. An exisng 12” PVC
sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper Creek and would require either the
259
relocaon of the line or the invert elevaons 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
stabilizaon of 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric would be installed to reduce
erosion in addion to nave planngs that can be found in Table 4.1. This
alternave was found to have a BCR under 1.0.
260
Alternave 8A1 (Channelizaon and Bridge Improvement at Windsor Dr.)
This alternave is located at the bridge crossing of Windsor Drive. Windsor drive
includes mulple exisng ulies 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 alternave 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 addion. The invert elevaons of the box
culverts would reduce from the exisng 612.4 feet to approximately 611.3. This
alternave requires relocaon of a 15” ducle iron pipe water line, 15” PVC
sanitary sewer line, and sanitary sewer manholes. A 36” RCP storm drain would
261
be reinstalled on the south bank within a non-standard cast in place headwall
structure. An exisng power pole would need to be relocated and the bridge
would require reconstrucon with 12” asphalt pavement. Approximately, 4,400
cubic yards of earthwork would be required and channel slope stabilizaon, such
as 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric, would be installed to reduce erosion aAer
bare earthwork along the channel sides in addion to nave planngs such as
those found in table 4.1. This alternave was found to have a BCR under 1.0.
262
Alternave 17A1 (Detenon (2C1)+Bridge Improvements (8A1)+Channelizaon (8A1))
This alternave is a combinaon of previous alternaves 2C1 and 8A1.
Alternave 2C1 is located upstream of Stuart Drive and consists of a 9.3acre
detenon pond. 6:1 Side slopes would be graded on all sides of the pond with
the bank along the creek terminang at an elevaon of 640.5 feet that would
act as a weir for stormwater to fill the pond under heavy flow condions and be
lined with 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric on both sides of “weir”. All other
sides would meet exisng elevaons. The bo-om of the detenon pond would
have a maximum elevaon of 637 feet. Clearing and grubbing would require the
removal of large number of trees that would not require replanng and 106,000
cubic yards of earthwork that would be hauled to a local landfill. The detenon
pond would be expected to fully drain within 24 hours through a 24” reinforced
concrete pipe that ou;lows back into Cooper Creek on the Northeast edge of
the detenon pond. An exisng 12” PVC sanitary sewer line parallels Cooper
263
Creek and would require either the relocaon of the line or the invert elevaons
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 alternave would include engineering with nature features
that include nave planngs within the detenon pond and can be found in
Table 4.1. This alternave is located at the bridge crossing of Windsor Drive.
Windsor drive includes mulple exisng ulies 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 alternave 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 addion. The invert
elevaons of the box culverts would reduce from the exisng 612.4 feet to
approximately 611.3. This alternave requires relocaon of a 15” ducle 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 exisng power pole would need to be
relocated and the bridge would require reconstrucon with 12” asphalt
pavement. Approximately, 4,400 cubic yards of earthwork would be required
and channel slope stabilizaon, such as 5mm nonwoven geotexle fabric, would
be installed to reduce erosion aAer bare earthwork along the channel sides in
addion to nave planngs such as those found in table 4.1. This alternave was
found to have a BCR under 1.0.
264
3. Construcon Procedures
Construcon Access
Haul routes, traffic control plans, and construcon access would vary based on
the alternave(s) chosen and would be chosen to minimize disrupon to local
traffic.
Pavement Repair
Due to construcon traffic, it is ancipated that local roads would be damaged
and require repair.
Laydown Areas
Laydown areas for construcon material and equipment would be required and
would be decided based on the alternave(s) chosen.
4. Nave Planngs
In an effort to provide cost-effecve, self-sustaining alternaves to tradionally
engineered flood management, the planng list in Table 4.1 would be used to replant all
disturbed areas due to them being nave to the area of the North Texas, having deep
root systems that help resist erosion of soil, and their drought tolerance.
Table 4.1 Planng 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
265
Appendix F:
Geotechnical
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
266
267
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 hi storical 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.
Alternative 2 – Detention Basin alone
(2A1) Detention above E Sherman Dr
(2C1) Detention above Stuart Rd (elev 637)
(2D1) Detention above Stuart Rd (elev 634)
Alternative 3 – Detention Basin and Channel
Improvements
Detention (2C1) with channelization at E
Windsor Dr.
Alternative 5 – Detention Basin and Bridge Culvert Modifications Detention (2C1) with bridge improvement at E Sherman Dr.
Alternative 8 – Channel Improvements and Bridge Culvert Modifications Channelization and bridge improvements at E Windsor Dr.
Alternative 17- Detention Basin, Bridge Culvert Modifications, Channel Improvements Detention (2C1) with channelization and bridge improvements at E Windsor Dr.
268
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 s quare 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).
269
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.
270
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.
271
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 S tuart 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 2C1 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 2D1 considers the construction of a detention basin at the same location as 2C1,
listed above. Except, this proposed design incorporates a basin bottom at elevation 634 feet
and weir at elevation 639.8 f eet. 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 2C1 and the channel improvement
272
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 2C1 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 c ubic 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.
273
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:1V slope for the final channel profile with a
channel depth at approximately 9 f eet. 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
274
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.
275
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.
276
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Prepared By: Justin Weeks
Realty Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
REAL ESTATE APPENDIX
Cooper Creek
Continuing Authorities Program: Section 205
Flood Risk Management
Denton, Texas
Updated: 10 January 2025
277
2 | Page
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.
Table 1. Alternatives considered during feasibility stage of Cooper Creek CAP Section
205 Study.
278
3| Page
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
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.
g
279
4| Page
Figure 2. Area to be acquired for alternatives 2C1 and 2D1.
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.
gggggg
280
5| Page
Figure 3. Area to be acquired for alternative 8A1.
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 bridge culvert modifications required for alternative 5A1.
281
6 | 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.
282
7 | Page
Prepared by:
Justin Weeks
Realty Specialist
Fort Worth District
Reviewed by:
David W. Mindieta
Chief, Planning and Appraisal
Fort Worth District
WEEKS.JUSTIN.R
EID.1589564690
Digitally signed by WEEKS.JUSTIN.REID.15895646
90
Date: 2025.02.11 07:50:29 -06'00'
MINDIETA.DAVID.
WADE.1283632870
Digitally signed by
MINDIETA.DAVID.WADE.128363
2870Date: 2025.02.13 07:44:12 -06'00'
283
DRAFTAPPENDIX : DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND PLAT
284
DRAFT285
DRAFT286
DRAFT287
DRAFT288
DRAFT289
DRAFT290
DRAFT291
DRAFT292
DRAFT293
DRAFT294
DRAFT295
DRAFT296
DRAFT297
DRAFT298
DRAFT299
DRAFTAPPENDIX
ASSESSMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR’SREAL 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
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 II.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?
300
DRAFTe. 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.
301
1. TITLE PAGE
REAL ESTATE COST STUDY
COOPER CREEK SECTION 205
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
302
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
Ϯ
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Ϯ͘d> K&KEd Ed^ ................................................................................................................................. Ϯ
3. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. Ϯ
ϰ͘WhZWK^ K&K^d ^d/Dd ................................................................................................................... 4
ϱ͘/Ed E h^ K&K^d ^dDd ͬ/Ed E h^ Z................................................................................ 4
6. PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4
7. ESTATES OR PROPERTY RIGHTS ................................................................................................................ 4
ϴ͘^KW K&d, K^d ^d/Dd ................................................................................................................. ϱ
ϵ͘ &/E/d/KE^ .............................................................................................................................................. ϱ
ϭϬ͘>/D/d/E'KE/d/KE^E^^hDWd/KE^ ........................................................................................... 6
ϭϭ͘ y/^d/E' ^ D Ed^KZ/Ed Z ^d^ ..................................................................................................... 7
ϭϮ͘Z ͕/dz͕EE /',KZ,KKd ............................................................................................... 8
ϭϯ͘WZKW Zdzd ...................................................................................................................................... 8
ϭϰ͘,/', ^dE ^dh^ ͗ ......................................................................................................................... 9
ϭϱ͘KE^/ Zd/KEK&& Z>E^dd Zh> ^ .................................................................................. 9
ϭϲ͘s>hd/KEWZK ^^ .............................................................................................................................. 9
ϭϳ͘KZZ >d/KEͬZ KE/>/d/KE .......................................................................................................... 11
ϭϴ͘D' ^ͬ^ s ZE ^ ....................................................................................................................... ϭϮ
ϮϬ͘KE>h^/KE ......................................................................................................................................... 13
ϮϮ͘ Z/>DW^ ......................................................................................................................................... 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
x 0.82 acres $24,590
2. Alternative 2C1/2D1 – Fee Simple acquisition of Privately Owned Tract PID 39529
x 15.14 acres $484,715
3. Alternative 8A1 – Channel Improvement Easement on 21 Privately Owned Tracts
in Avondale Subdivision
x 1.837 acres $439,200
303
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
3
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
304
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
4
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.
305
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
ϱ
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 another’s 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.
306
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
6
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.
x 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.
x The estimator made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in
connection with such matters.
x The estimator believes to be reliable the information identified in this report as
furnished by others but assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.
x 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.
307
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
7
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x 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.
x In accordance with ER 405-1-04 (dated 29-Jan-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.
308
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
8
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.
x Parcel 34607 is described as A0274A J. 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.
x Parcel 39529 is described as A0186A BBB & CRR, TR 23,26, 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.
309
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
9
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:
x Lots 7 thru 10 and Lot 23, Block A, Avondale 1, City of Denton, Denton County,
Texas
x Lots 8 thru 11, Block C, Avondale 1, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas
x Lots 5 thru 12, Block F, Avondale 2, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas
x Lots 1 thru 3, Block G, Avondale 2, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas
x 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.
310
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
ϭϬ
For this cost estimate, the client requested the development of market value estimate for
each of the following three (3) scenarios:
x 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
x Alternative 2 – what is the estimated value of a fee simple acquisition of 15.14
acres of privately owned land (Tax Parcel 39529)
x 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
311
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ–ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
11
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.
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
x Alternative 2A1 90% of $33,319 per acre
x Alternative 2C1/2D1 $32,016 per acre
x Alternative 8A1 90% of $6.10 per square foot
312
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
ϭϮ
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 91-646): 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.
313
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
13
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
x 0.82 acres $24,590
2. Alternative 2C1/2D1 – Fee Simple acquisition of Privately Owned Tract PID 39529
x 15.14 acres $484,715
3. Alternative 8A1 – Channel Improvement Easement on 21 Privately Owned Tracts
in Avondale Subdivision
x 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
314
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ– ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
14
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.
November 6, 2024 Clay Miller
Review Appraiser
USACE, Fort Worth District
22. AERIAL MAPS
MILLER.WILLIAM
.CLAYTON.1571
442074
Digitally signed by
MILLER.WILLIAM.CLAYTON.
1571442074
Date: 2024.11.06 15:56:34
-06'00'
315
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ–ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
ϭϱ
Alternative 2A1
316
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ–ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
16
Alternative 2C1/2D1
317
WZK: d͗ZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞŽƐƚ ƐƟŵĂƚĞ–ŽŽƉĞƌƌĞĞŬ^ĞĐƟŽŶϮϬϱ&ůŽŽĚĂŵĂŐĞZĞĚƵĐƟŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝƚLJŽĨ
ĞŶƚŽŶ;ĞŶƚŽŶŽƵŶƚLJͿdĞdžĂƐ
17
Alternative 8A1
318
Appendix H: Hazardous, Toxic,
Radioactive Waste
Cooper Creek, Denton, TX
Section 205
Closeout Report
February 2025
319
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.
320
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 Superfund 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
321
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.
322
Figure 2: HTRW Sites
323
Figure 3: Oil & Gas Wells and Pipelines
324
September 05, 2025 Report No. 2025-069
INFORMAL STAFF REPORT
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: On July 24, 2025, Denton Water Utilities filed comments with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regarding two proposed Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“TPDES”) permit applications submitted by outside entities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A TPDES permit authorizes a person or entity to discharge wastewater into waters of the state. On Jan. 7, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager or their designee to protest TPDES permit applications filed with TCEQ that seek to discharge treated wastewater into Denton
watersheds (Ordinance No. 24-2480). Protesting the applications and associated proposed permits
is intended to safeguard water quality and to protect the City’s interests related to wastewater regionalization.
DISCUSSION:
The protested TPDES permits are WQ0016632001, filed by 636 Denton Dev Company, LLC for
“Sundance,” and WQ0016624001, filed by Sanger Laguna Azure, LLC and James Horn. The
attached Notices of Protest include the City’s comments, which outline the concerns and bases for the protest. Water Utilities staff are available to address any questions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Protest WQ0016632001 2. Notice of Protest WQ0016624001
STAFF CONTACT: Stephen Gay
General Manager of Water Utilities and Street Operations Stephen.gay@cityofdenton.com (940) 349-8086
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
WTP
Clear Creek
WWTP
&&&
&&&&&&
0.11 mi
0.52 mi
0.54 mi
1.32 mi
1.7 mi
2.42 mi
2.67 mi
4.67 mi
5.52 mi
¯
Legend
Proposed Sundance
Outfall
3-Mile Buffer From
Outfall
City Limits
Denton ETJ
Denton Sewer CCN
&Distance from Outfall
Existing Sewer Line
5-Year CIP Projects
Proposed Sewer Line
10-Year CIP Projects
Proposed Sewer Line
Lift Stations
City of Denton
Private
0 0.8 1.60.4
Miles 336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
WTP
Clear Creek
WWTP
Ray Roberts
WTP
&&&&0.39 mi
4.2 mi
4.27 mi
5.94 mi
¯
Legend
Proposed Sanger
Outfall
3-Mile Buffer from
Outfall
&Distances from Outfall
City Limits
Denton ETJ
5-Year CIP Projects
Proposed Sewer Lines
10-Year CIP Projects
Proposed Sewer Lines
0 1 20.5
Miles 349
Friday Report - Council RequestsSummary of Request or ItemCouncil Member Requestor Date Received Staff AssignedDepartmentCommentsStatus1School zone near Reeves Elementary Mayor Pro Tem Rumohr08/20/25 Farhan ButtDevelopment ServicesTraffic audit will be completeby September 122No parking on Marietta Street near UNT Mayor Pro Tem Rumohr08/28/25 Farhan ButtDevelopment ServicesResponse will be ready bySeptember 103Accident on Teasley near Summit Oaks Mayor Hudspeth CouncilMember Holland09/01/25 Farhan ButtDevelopment ServicesReferred to staff.4Audra Lane homelessness activity Mayor Hudspeth09/02/25 Jesse Kent, Jessica RobledoCommunity Services PoliceReferred to staff.5Craftstrom plug insCouncil Member Beck09/03/25 Antonio PuenteDMEReferred to staff.6Board and commission transcripts Council Member Beck09/05/25 Kristi FogleCMO City Secretary's OfficeReferred to staff.7Construction behind Robson Ranch Mayor Hudspeth09/05/25 Scott McDonaldDevelopment ServicesReferred to staff.8Easement on University DriveMayor Hudspeth09/05/259Left turn from Bolivar to University Drive Council Member Holland 08/09/25 Farhan ButtDevelopment ServicesResponse sent.10Construction vehicles in Thistle HillEstatesCouncil Member Holland 08/29/25 Scott McDonald,seth.garcia@cityofdenton.comCapital Projects/Engineering/Public WorksDevelopment ServicesResponse sent.11Hickory Creek Road completion Council Member Holland 09/02/25 Seth GarciaCapital Projects/Engineering/Public Works Response sent.12Group/boarding home regulations Mayor Pro Tem Rumohr09/02/25 Jesse Kent, Scott McDonaldCommunity Services Development Services Response sent.13Ranch Estates traffic concerns Mayor Hudspeth08/11/25 Farhan ButtDevelopment ServicesResponse sent.350
351
Meeting Calendar
City of Denton City Hall
215 E. McKinney St.
Denton, Texas 76201
www.cityofdenton.com
Criteria : Begin Date: 9/8/2025, End Date: 12/12/2025
Date Time Meeting LocationMeeting Body
September 2025
9/8/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
9/8/2025 5:30 PM Board of Ethics CANCELLED
9/8/2025 5:30 PM Historic Landmark Commission Development Service Center
9/8/2025 5:30 PM Library Board North Branch Library
9/8/2025 6:00 PM Parks, Recreation and Beautification
Board
Civic Center Community Room
9/9/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
9/10/2025 10:00 AM Animal Shelter Advisory Committee Animal Services Training Room
9/10/2025 11:00 AM Economic Development Partnership
Board
Development Service Center
9/10/2025 3:00 PM Airport Advisory Board CANCELLED
9/10/2025 6:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
9/11/2025 3:00 PM Health & Building Standards
Commission
Cancelled
9/12/2025 12:00 PM Community Services Advisory
Committee
Development Service Center
9/15/2025 9:00 AM Public Utilities Board Council Work Session Room
9/16/2025 9:00 AM Committee on the Environment Denton Civic Center Redbud
Room
9/16/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
9/18/2025 3:00 PM Committee on Persons with Disabilities Development Service Center
9/22/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
9/22/2025 5:30 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment Development Service Center
9/24/2025 10:00 AM Mobility Committee Council Work Session Room
9/24/2025 12:00 PM Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone
Number One Board
Development Service Center
Page 1City of Denton Printed on 9/4/2025
352
Date Time Meeting LocationMeeting Body
Meeting Calendar continued...
9/24/2025 1:00 PM Civil Service Commission City Hall East
Human Resources Training Room
9/24/2025 5:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
9/26/2025 1:00 PM Sustainability Framework Advisory
Committee
City Council Work Session Room
9/29/2025 9:00 AM Public Utilities Board Council Work Session Room
9/30/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
October 2025
10/2/2025 8:00 AM Agenda Committee Council Work Session Room
10/2/2025 8:30 AM Downtown Economic Development
Committee
Development Service Center
10/2/2025 4:00 PM Public Art Committee Civic Center Community Room
10/6/2025 6:00 PM Parks, Recreation and Beautification
Board
Civic Center Community Room
10/8/2025 11:00 AM Economic Development Partnership
Board
Development Service Center
10/8/2025 3:00 PM Airport Advisory Board Airport Terminal Meeting Room
10/8/2025 5:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
10/9/2025 3:00 PM Health & Building Standards
Commission
Development Service Center
10/10/2025 12:00 PM Community Services Advisory
Committee
Development Service Center
10/13/2025 9:00 AM Public Utilities Board Council Work Session Room
10/13/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
10/13/2025 5:30 PM Board of Ethics Council Work Session Room
10/13/2025 5:30 PM Historic Landmark Commission Development Service Center
10/13/2025 5:30 PM Library Board South Branch Library
10/14/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
10/21/2025 12:00 PM City Council Development Services Training
Center
&
Council Chambers
Page 2City of Denton Printed on 9/4/2025
353
Date Time Meeting LocationMeeting Body
Meeting Calendar continued...
10/21/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
10/22/2025 Civil Service Commission City Hall East
Human Resources Training Room
10/22/2025 5:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
10/24/2025 9:00 AM Community Partnership Committee City Council Work Session Room
10/24/2025 1:00 PM Sustainability Framework Advisory
Committee
City Council Work Session Room
10/27/2025 9:00 AM Public Utilities Board Council Work Session Room
10/27/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
10/27/2025 5:30 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment Development Service Center
10/29/2025 10:00 AM Mobility Committee Council Work Session Room
November 2025
11/3/2025 6:00 PM Parks, Recreation and Beautification
Board
Civic Center Community Room
11/6/2025 8:00 AM Agenda Committee Council Work Session Room
11/10/2025 5:30 PM Board of Ethics Council Work Session Room
11/10/2025 5:30 PM Historic Landmark Commission Development Service Center
11/10/2025 5:30 PM Library Board Emily Fowler Central Library
11/12/2025 10:00 AM Animal Shelter Advisory Committee Animal Services Training Room
11/12/2025 11:00 AM Economic Development Partnership
Board
Development Service Center
11/12/2025 3:00 PM Airport Advisory Board Airport Terminal Meeting Room
11/13/2025 3:00 PM Health & Building Standards
Commission
Development Service Center
11/14/2025 12:00 PM Community Services Advisory
Committee
Civic Center at 321 E. McKinney
St., Denton, TX, 76201 in the
Community Room
11/14/2025 1:00 PM Bond Oversight Committee Development Service Center
11/17/2025 9:00 AM Public Utilities Board Council Work Session Room
11/17/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
11/17/2025 5:30 PM Zoning Board of Adjustment Development Service Center
11/18/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
Page 3City of Denton Printed on 9/4/2025
354
Date Time Meeting LocationMeeting Body
Meeting Calendar continued...
11/19/2025 10:00 AM Mobility Committee Council Work Session Room
11/19/2025 12:00 PM Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone
Number One Board
Development Service Center
11/19/2025 5:00 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
11/20/2025 3:00 PM Committee on Persons with Disabilities Development Service Center
11/26/2025 1:00 PM Civil Service Commission City Hall East
Human Resources Training Room
December 2025
12/1/2025 6:00 PM Parks, Recreation and Beautification
Board
Civic Center Community Room
12/2/2025 2:00 PM City Council Council Work Session Room
&
Council Chambers
12/4/2025 8:00 AM Agenda Committee Council Work Session Room
12/4/2025 8:30 AM Downtown Economic Development
Committee
Development Service Center
12/4/2025 4:00 PM Public Art Committee Civic Center Community Room
12/8/2025 3:00 PM Development Code Review Committee Development Services Center
12/8/2025 5:30 PM Board of Ethics Council Work Session Room
12/8/2025 5:30 PM Historic Landmark Commission Development Service Center
12/8/2025 5:30 PM Library Board North Branch Library
12/10/2025 11:00 AM Economic Development Partnership
Board
Development Service Center
12/10/2025 3:00 PM Airport Advisory Board Airport Terminal Meeting Room
12/11/2025 3:00 PM Health & Building Standards
Commission
Development Service Center
12/12/2025 9:00 AM Community Partnership Committee City Council Work Session Room
12/12/2025 12:00 PM Community Services Advisory
Committee
Development Service Center
12/12/2025 1:00 PM Sustainability Framework Advisory
Committee
City Council Work Session Room
Page 4City of Denton Printed on 9/4/2025
355
Meeting Date Item Legistar ID Departments Involved Type Estimated
Time
A. Audit Plan 25-1536 City Auditor's Office City Business 0:30
B. Inclement Weather Policy 25-1366 Community Services City Business 1:00
C. Budget Update 25-1566 Finance City Business 1:00
D. Two Minute Pitch: Boards and commissions member term uniformity (CM Jester)25-033 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 3:30
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Water Master Plan 25-363 Water City Business 0:45
B. Resolution Declaring June as Pride Month 25-1624 City Manager's Office City Business 0:45
C. Two Minute Pitch:25-034 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 2:30
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Audit of Parks Management and Planning 25-340 Internal Audit City Business 0:30
B. Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 25-1577 Development Services City Business 0:45
C. Utility Billing Programs Update 25-1363 Customer Service/Water City Business 0:45
D. Two Minute Pitch:25-035 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 3:00
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Federal Legislative Update TBD City Manager's Office City Business 1:00
B. Animal Services Audit Follow-Up 25-1537 Internal Audit City Business 0:30
C. Animal Services Building Update TBD City Manager's Office City Business 1:00
D. Two Minute Pitch:25-036 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 3:30
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. City of Denton road construction update 25-1593 Capital Projects City Business 0:30
B. Denton ISD tax election 25-1594 Denton ISD DISD Business 0:30
C. Public hearing on property 25-1595 City Manager's Office City Business 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 2:00
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Craver Ranch MMD 25-1589 Development Services City Business 1:00
B. Employee Benefit Plan Changes for 2026 25-1651 Human Resources City Business 0:30
D. Two Minute Pitch:25-037 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 2:30
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Work Plan for Streets and Drainage 25-1625 Water Utilities & Street Ops City Business 1:00
B. Two Minute Pitch:25-038 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 2:00
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Aiport Master Plan 25-1543 Airport City Business 1:00
B. CVB Bylaws TBD MarComm City Business 0:30
C. Two Minute Pitch:25-1031 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 2:30
Other Major Items for Meeting:
A. Two Minute Pitch:25-1033 City Manager's Office Council Request 0:30
Closed Meeting Item(s): Legal (if any)City Business 0:30
Total Est. Time: 1:00
Other Major Items for Meeting:
LIHTC TBD Community Services City Business 0:30
Item Date Approved Department Next Step Requestor
Approved Council Pitches to be Scheduled Board of Ethics develop guidance for interactions with external partners 6/18/2024 Internal Audit Work Session CM Beck
Council Priorities and Significant Work Plan Items
to be Scheduled
Tentative Work Session Topics and Meeting Information
Updated: September 5, 2025
September 9
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Special Called Meeting (Upon conclusion of the
Work Session)
November 18
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Special Called Meeting (Upon conclusion of the
Work Session)
September 16
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Regular Meeting (@6:30 p.m.)
October 21
Special Called Joint Meeting with Denton ISD
(@12:00 p.m.)
October 14
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Special Called Meeting (Upon conclusion of the
Work Session)
December 2
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Regular Meeting (@6:30 p.m.)
December 16
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Regular Meeting (@6:30 p.m.)
September 30
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Special Called Meeting (Upon conclusion of the
Work Session)
October 21
Work Session (@2:00 p.m.)
Regular Meeting (@6:30 p.m.)
*This is for planning purposes only. Dates are subject to change.356
1 Street Closure Report: Upcoming ClosuresSCR Sept 8th - 14thStreet/ IntersectionFromToClosure StartDateClosure EndDateDescriptionDepartmentDepartment Contact Closure Type1 Exported on September 5, 2025 11:33:40 AM CDT357
2 Street Closure Report: Current ClosuresStreet/ IntersectionFromToClosure StartDateClosure EndDateDescriptionDepartmentDepartment Contact Closure Type1Alice StSunset StUniversity Dr (US 380)05/27/25 10/31/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigRolling Closure2Alice StPanhandle StCrescent St05/02/25 12/05/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure3Amarillo StHaynes StCongress St08/11/25 12/31/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure4Apollo DrRedstone RdSelene Dr07/24/25 02/13/26 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure5Ave AMaple StUnderwood St09/02/25 09/30/25 Mabak installing utilities Public Works Inspections Stephany TrammellLane Closure6Bonnie Brae St SWillowwood StParvin St09/08/25 12/19/25 Installation of drainageinfrastructure, embankmentwork in advance of streetwidening. (Access to NatlWholesale & residents only)EngineeringRobin DavisFull Closure7Cactus CirYucca Dr(End of street) Cul de sac04/28/25 09/26/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure8Carlton StAileen StMalone St07/23/25 09/19/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure9Congress StPonder StCarroll Blvd03/31/25 09/30/25 Utility installations andpavement replacementEngineeringMegan DavidsonRolling Closure10Cordell StCoit StFulton St06/30/25 09/26/25 Full road reconstruction EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure11Crescent St WAileen StMalone St05/21/25 09/12/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure12Denton StHickory StCongress St06/02/25 11/05/25 Utility installations andpavement replacementEngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure13Eagle DrAve CAve A03/17/25 10/31/25 Using it or an entrance due toelevation changes in the jobsiteit is the only way to get into thesitePublic Works Inspections Collin ColeLane Closure14Ector StCordell StUniversity Dr (US380)06/30/25 09/19/25 Sewer Line Being installed,Manholes, pipe, pavingPublic Works Inspections Collin ColeFull Closure15Egan StCarroll BlvdBolivar St05/07/25 09/12/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure16Fry StOak StHickory St04/28/25 09/19/25 Mastec relocating gas lines Public Works Inspections Stephany TrammellRolling Closure17Hickory Creek RdRiverpass DrCountry Club Rd (FM 1830) 03/13/23 12/31/26 Bridge InstallationEngineeringTracy BeckFull Closure18Hilltop RdCountry Club Road (FM 1830) @ intersection05/27/25 09/30/25 Hilltop Road at Country ClubRoad will be reconstructed (newdrainage, road, etc.) and newnorthbound right turn lane willbe added to Country Club RoadEngineeringTracy BeckFull Closure19Hobson LnForrestridge DrCountry Club Rd09/15/25 09/30/25 Striping new pavement onHobsonPrivate DevelopmentGavin PetnerFull Closure20Hobson LnForrestridge DrCountry Club Rd09/15/25 10/01/25 Signage and striping on HobsonLane.Public Works Inspections Gavin PetnerFull Closure21Huisache StAspen DrYucca Dr04/09/25 09/26/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleRolling Closure22Jim Christal RdMasch Branch Rd@ Intersection03/14/25 09/12/25 Adding 2 Lanes E/W on JimChristal: Adding a turn Lane onMasch BranchPublic Works Inspections Kirk WinterLane Closure23Juno LnAtlas DrStuart Dr04/09/25 09/12/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigRolling Closure24Mistywood LnRobinwood LnGlenwood Ln04/28/25 09/26/25 Construction ActivityOtherSheldon GatewoodFull Closure25Mockingbird LnMingo RdUniversity Dr (U.S. 380)06/16/25 09/26/25 Bore work to install newsanitary sewer line.Private DevelopmentZabdiel MotaLane Closure26Mounts AveCongress St WHaynes St08/01/25 11/01/25 Utility installations andpavement replacementEngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure27Mulberry StWelch StBernard St11/29/24 10/01/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure28Normal StScripture StOak St08/18/25 12/31/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure29Northridge StHinkle DrBolivar St04/16/25 04/20/26 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleRolling Closure30Oak StCarroll BlvdFry St04/21/25 09/19/25 Mastec relocating gas lines Public Works Inspections Stephany TrammellRolling Closure31Oak StWelch StAve C04/28/25 09/19/25 Mastec relocating gas lines Public Works Inspections Stephany TrammellRolling Closure Exported on September 5, 2025 11:34:14 AM CDT358
Street/ IntersectionFromToClosure StartDateClosure EndDateDescriptionDepartmentDepartment Contact Closure Type32Ocean DrAtlantic DrNautical Ln04/14/25 09/15/25 Sanitary Sewer install/ pavingrepairPrivate DevelopmentGavin PetnerFull Closure33Panhandle St (2525)East Park BlvdBonnie Brae St07/31/25 09/30/25 Paving driveway approaches /sidewalks .Private Development PublicWorks InspectionsRyan DonaldsonLane Closure34Pershing DrAtlas DrStuart Rd05/08/25 12/15/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure35Ponder AveOak St WPanhandle St06/02/25 12/31/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigRolling Closure36Ranchman Blvd (3617)Sundown Blvd@ Intersection09/01/25 09/30/25 ADA and Sidewalk Repair StreetsRoy San MiguelLane Closure37Redstone RdHercules LnNeptune Dr05/05/25 06/12/26 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure38Robinwood LnEmerson LnLive Oak St11/12/24 09/26/25 Full Road Reconstruction EngineeringSheldon GatewoodFull Closure39Robinwood LnLive Oak StKayewood Dr01/27/25 09/26/25 Road reconstruction (Millingand C/G Removal, Stabilization)EngineeringSheldon GatewoodFull Closure40Scripture StBonnie Brae StI-35 Service Rd08/18/25 09/26/25 Sidewalk / ADA Repair StreetsRoy San MiguelLane Closure41Scripture StJagoe StPonder St03/04/25 10/17/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure42Selene DrNeptune DrStuart Rd06/04/25 11/28/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure43Sheraton RdImperial DrSun Valley Dr08/11/25 12/12/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure44Sunnydale LnSun Valley DrKings Row07/10/25 12/05/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure45Sunset StUniversity Dr WCarroll Blvd01/20/25 10/16/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure46Sunset StCarroll BlvdBolivar St07/07/25 10/17/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure47Trinity Rd SMcKinney St EMary Ln06/09/25 09/19/25 Force Main Waterline beinginstalled, staging area and lineinstall. Road closed to throughtrafficPublic Works Inspections Collin ColeFull Closure48Unicorn Lake BlvdState School RdShoreline Dr07/03/25 12/30/25 Sanitary sewer connection andpaving repairPrivate DevelopmentGavin PetnerLane Closure49Union Cir (in entirety)Chestnut StPrairie St05/12/25 10/01/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure50Walt Parker DrBonnie Brae StTennis/Soccer Complex parking lotentrance09/02/25 09/12/25 Paving Improvements on WaltParker at the Bonnie BraeIntersection (NO ACCESS toWalt Parker from Bonnie Brae -ACCESS WALT PARKER viaNORTH TEXAS BLVD, thenroute behind Stadium parkinglot back to Walt Parker.))EngineeringRobin DavisFull Closure51Welch StEagle DrHickory St05/31/24 10/15/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigRolling Closure52Wind River LnWidgeon LnMeredith Ln08/08/25 09/30/25 Emergency pond pumping perWatershed compliance orderPrivate DevelopmentGavin PetnerLane Closure53Yellowstone PlHercules LnJuno Ln06/30/25 10/10/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure Exported on September 5, 2025 11:34:14 AM CDT359
3 Street Closure Report: Completed ClosuresStreet/ IntersectionFromToClosure StartDateClosure EndDateDescriptionDepartmentDepartment Contact Closure Type1Aileen StPanhandle StCordell St09/27/24 09/05/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringScott FettigFull Closure2Airport Rd (FM 1515) I 35 E Service RdI 35 W Service Rd07/30/25 08/18/25 Paving work by both City andTxDot contractors for the 35E,Bonnie Brae and Airport Roadprojects. (USE WESTERNBLVD)EngineeringRobin DavisFull Closure3Ave DChestnut StMulberry St05/12/25 08/15/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure4Ave GPrairie StLouise St03/13/25 09/01/25 Utility installations andpavement replacementEngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure5Bonnie Brae StConquest DrNorth Lakes Park07/07/25 08/21/25 Contractor will be demolishingthe existing street intersectionof Bonnie Brae and RineyRoad. The Contractor willconstruct the new concretestreet intersection. Contractorhas built a temporary concretepavement detour to allow trafficto keep moving north and south.EngineeringJesus PerezFull Closure6Bonnie Brae St SI 35 EWalt Parker Dr07/30/25 08/18/25 Paving work by both City andTxDot contractors for the 35E,Bonnie Brae and Airport Roadprojects.Robin DavisFull Closure7Brookside Dr (5700) Trailridge Dr@ intersection07/21/25 08/15/25 Sidewalk RepairStreetsRoy San MiguelLane Closure8Chestnut StAve CAve D05/12/25 08/15/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure9Congress St WMalone StBryan St01/31/25 09/02/25 Utility installations andpavement replacementEngineeringMegan DavidsonFull Closure10Fannin StS Ave BMcCormick st08/01/25 08/15/25 Utility work for PCM24-0012 Public Works Inspections Alexander CervantesLane Closure11Glenwood DrKayewood DrMistywood Ln07/21/25 08/31/25 Drainage Cut across Glenwoodto remove and install newJunction BoxDrainageSheldon GatewoodFull Closure12Hercules Ln (East bound) Redstone RdStuart Rd07/18/25 08/25/25 Offsite utility work for Landmarkat Locust projectPublic Works Inspections Alexander CervantesLane Closure13Hercules Ln (West bound) Redstone RdStuart Rd07/21/25 08/25/25 Offsite utility work for Landmarkat Locust projectPublic Works Inspections Alexander CervantesLane Closure14Kings RowStuart RdValley View Rd08/12/25 08/13/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure15Kings RowSunnydale Ln@ Intersection09/02/25 09/05/25 Utility Work and pavementrepairsEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure16Longmeadow CtWest (cul de sac)Mack Dr.08/18/25 08/22/25 Basefailure repairsStreetsRoy San MiguelFull Closure17Mulberry StElm StCarroll Blvd03/17/25 08/22/25 Water/Wastewater connections Public Works Inspections Stephany TrammellFull Closure18Normal StOak StScripture St05/08/25 08/29/25 Utility installations andpavement replacement.EngineeringMegan Davidson19Oak St E (109)Austin St@ intersection05/19/25 08/22/25 ADA / Sidewalk Work atIntersectionStreetsRoy San MiguelLane Closure20Parvin StLarkhall LnBonnie Brae St07/21/25 09/05/25 Installation of DrainageInfrastructure crossing Parvinnear Bonnie Brae. NOACCESS TO BONNIE BRAEFROM PARVIN - UseWillowwoodEngineeringRobin DavisFull Closure21Precision DrAirport RdUNT Library Annex04/01/25 08/28/25 ReconstructionEngineering OtherGio PineiroFull Closure22Riney RdBonnie Brae StHardaway Rd03/08/25 08/08/25 Contractor to install 12-inchwaterline to provide water to thenew DISD elementary schoolEngineeringJesus PerezFull Closure23Seven Oaks Ln (7912) Clear River Ln@ Intersection06/23/25 08/08/25 Sidewalk RepairStreetsRoy San MiguelLane Closure24Sheraton RdImperial Dr@ Intersection09/02/25 09/05/25 Utilities and PavementreplacementEngineeringDante HaleFull Closure Exported on September 5, 2025 11:34:30 AM CDT360