ASFPM May 2012 Collaborative Efforts Lead to Design and Permitting Success: Hausman Road LC-9 Andy A. Atlas, AICP, CP&Y Wesley R. Young, PE, CFM, CP&Y

ASFPM May 2012 Overview Issues Solutions Process New Tools

ASFPM May 2012 Issues for Hausman Road Project LC9 Three low water crossings over two creeks: – Flooding on Hausman Road – Flooding of homes downstream of Hausman Road

ASFPM May 2012 More Issues for Hausman Road Project Roadway does not meet current design standards Local, State, and Federal Permitting required

ASFPM May 2012 Initial Objectives Improved Hausman Road with all weather access Expand roadway to current design standards Avoid/Minimize environmental impacts Remove adjacent and downstream homes from the floodplain

ASFPM May 2012 Issues Complicating Objectives Engineering Design – Bridge Height vs Channel Excavation Environmental Issues – Section 404 Permitting IP vs NWP – Tree Preservation – Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone

ASFPM May 2012 Solutions Purchase property and convert to parkland Engineering – Elevate road above Huesta Creek and its tributary – Enhance channels to improve floodwater capacity – Incorporate Natural Channel Design (NCD) elements Environmental – Stream enhancement and mitigation – Tree preservation

ASFPM May 2012 Means / Procedure NWP 27 – Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities Stream Assessment provided baseline stream health index Add elements to channel design to enhance aquatic restoration Recalculate stream assessments for proposed conditions Monitoring required as part of NWP

ASFPM May 2012 Process Preliminary Engineering Report J UNE 2009 Preliminary Engineering Report J UNE 2009 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index F EBRUARY 2010 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index F EBRUARY 2010 Enhancement Goals A PRIL 2010 Enhancement Goals A PRIL 2010 Alternatives Analysis M AY 2010 Alternatives Analysis M AY 2010 Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction Notification O CTOBER 2010 Nationwide Permit 27 Pre-Construction Notification O CTOBER 2010 Mitigation Plan J UNE 2010 Mitigation Plan J UNE 2010 Tree Preservation Plan J UNE 2010 Tree Preservation Plan J UNE 2010

ASFPM May 2012 Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) Outlined existing conditions Summarized environmental constraints including Waters of the U.S., potential wetlands, vegetation, and T&E species habitat assessment Described 3 proposed conditions options

ASFPM May 2012 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) Biologist / Engineer team assessed 15 transects across the project site Evaluated various channel / floodplain parameters Calculated scores for each transect QHEI developed by Ohio EPA

ASFPM May 2012 QHEI Parameters to Evaluate Substrate Instream Cover Channel Morphology Bank Erosion Pool / Glide / Riffle / Runs Gradient

ASFPM May 2012 Enhancement Goals Provide unflooded access along Hausman Road Address public safety and flooding issues Enhance aquatic resources, consistent with NWP 27 Return natural stream function to previously channelized stream Preserve and enhance existing vegetation Ensure that the project is financially feasible

ASFPM May 2012 Enhancement Goals ObjectiveCoSAUSACEQHEI CP&Y / Program Preserve heritage trees X Plant native trees (including understory) and grasses XXXX Reestablish vegetation XX Mulch and water preserved trees during construction X Preserve/enhance desirable environmental features XX Shade pools/channel with tree canopy XX Reduce erosion XX Enhance water quality X Remove exotic plant species XX Establish depressions for valley storage XXXX Establish riffles and pools XXXX Preserve and enhance canopy cover XX Plant woody buffers along streets X Provide meandering low flow channel and increase channel sinuosity XXX Construct small nesting islands and/or islands around heritage trees XX Remove existing impervious cover X Re-create floodplain function with conveyance above the low flow channel XX Augment the bedrock areas with additional size substrates X Add instream cover XX Decrease the overall stream gradient throughout the project review area X Provide unflooded access along Hausman Road within the project limits X Maintain or increase area of riparian woodland XXX Provide flood protection for adjacent properties X Improve wildlife habitat XX Manage stormwater runoff XX Maximize project benefits while minimizing cost X

ASFPM May 2012 Enhancement Goals Used the data from the QHEI Identify achievable enhancement goals Restore natural stream characteristics

ASFPM May 2012 Alternatives Analysis Evaluated 5 alternatives Identified impacts of each alternative Analyzed enhancement benefits of each alternative

ASFPM May 2012 Alternatives Analysis Hausman Road Alternatives Matrix Review Area ExcavationTREESSTREAMSFLOODPLAINS 5 COST Project Review Area (acres) Total Area of Excavatio n (acres) Project Review Area to be Excavate d (%) Existing Tree Canopy (acres) Tree Canopy to be Removed (acres) Tree Canopy Remaining (%) Existing Heritage Trees 2 (#) Heritage Trees Removed 3 (#) Heritage Trees Preserve d (%) Existing Riparian Woodland s (acres) Riparian Woodland s to be Removed (acres) Riparian Woodland s to be Preserved (%) Length of Existing Streams (feet) Linear Feet of Streams to be Excavated (feet) Streams to be Excavated (%) Length of Proposed Streams 4 (feet) Maximum 2-year Stream Velocity 4 (ft/s) Stream Gradient 4 (ft/mi) Area of 100-yr Ultimate Conditions Floodplain Remaining Outside Project Review Area (acres) Parcels with some 100- yr Ultimate Conditions Floodplain (#) Residential Structures in 100-yr Ultimate Conditions Floodplain 6 (#) Overtops Hausman Road within Project Limits? Opinion of Probable Cost (millions) Alternative 1: %390100% %3,81300%1, Yes_ No Build Alternative 2 1 : % %392536% %3,8133,49092%1, No$7.1 Channel Excavation to Babcock Road Alternative 3 1 : % %39977% %3,8132,88076%1, No$6.1 Channel Excavation to Danvers Drive Alternative 4: % %391562% %3,8131,90050%2, No$8.8 Two Bridge Option Alternative 5: % %391172% %3,8132,62069%2, No$8.8 Three Bridge Option Notes 1: The level of impact analysis for Alternatives 2 and 3 is not as detailed as the analysis for Alternatives 4 and 5 because Alternatives 4 and 5 are refinements of Alternative 2 and have been carried to a higher level of design. 2: At the time of the heritage tree survey, right of entry was not available in the southwestern corner of the project review area. Therefore, some heritage trees may not have been counted in this total. 3: Infringement of the root protection zone was considered removal. 4: Based on the preliminary hydraulic design. 5: The quantities in this section refer to the Huesta Creek floodplain and include areas adjacent to the project review area, south of Hausman Road and west of Babcock Road. 6: The Alternatives matrix was conducted using 2009 Bexar County aerial photography, and as a result, newly constructed houses that have been built after the date the aerial photos were flown have not been quantified.

ASFPM May 2012 Recommended Alternative 5 3 Bridge Option with Channel Enhancements – Removes 21 residences from floodplain – Provides unflooded access – Provides extensive aquatic enhancements – Preserves over 70% of heritage trees – Preserves over 50% of riparian woodlands

ASFPM May 2012 Tree Preservation Plan Coordinated with City Arborist Selection of plants had to meet enhancement goals of USACE Plan coordinated for channel design – Planting density vs hydraulic roughness – Planting locations

ASFPM May 2012 Mitigation Plan Must address deficits identified in QHEI Based on the enhancement goals Must be verifiable and quantifiable Must conform to USACE expectations for aquatic enhancement

ASFPM May 2012 Table 1: Objectives, Metrics, and Proposed Actions/Results ObjectiveMetric and Enhancement Goal MetProposed Action/Results Preserve heritage trees Calculate percentage of heritage trees preserved under preferred alternative. Enhancement goal met by objective: 5 A total of 72 heritage trees were identified in the project area. Project engineers incorporated minimization and avoidance measures where possible into the project design. Construction of the project would require the removal of 15 heritage trees; however, as detailed in the Tree Preservation and Planting Plan, these impacts would be mitigated with a total of 482 trees and shrubs native to the San Antonio area. Plant native trees and grasses Calculate number of trees by species, canopy cover, and area of native trees and grasses to be planted. Monitor species survival rate for a period that will be finalized by CoSA and the USACE. Enhancement goal met by objective: 3, 5 A total of 482 native trees and shrubs would be planted in the project area. Additionally, 21.2 acres of native grass seed would be planted. The survival rates of these plantings would be monitored for a period agreed upon by the USACE and CoSA. Please refer to the Tree Preservation and Planting Plan in Attachment B for more details on species compositions and proposed planting locations. Reestablish vegetation Calculate area of impervious cover converted to vegetation. Monitor species survival rate for a period that will be finalized by CoSA and the USACE. Enhancement goal met by objective: 5 Approximately 3.9 acres of existing roadways and concrete slabs would be removed from the project area. Native grass seed would be planted in these areas (please refer to Attachment B for proposed planting plan). The survival rates of these plantings would be monitored for a period agreed upon by the USACE and CoSA. Mulch preserved trees during construction Identify areas of preserved trees requiring mulching. Monitor species survival rate for a period that will be finalized by CoSA and the USACE. Enhancement goal met by objective: 5 An orange mesh barrier fence would be placed around the root protection zone (RPZ) of trees to be preserved. The areas inside the fencing would be mulched to reduce moisture stress. The survival rates of these plantings would be monitored for a period agreed upon by the USACE and CoSA. Preserve/ enhance desirable environmental features Identify rare/native vegetation and habitats. Calculate areas by habitat type. Calculate percentage of these areas preserved by preferred alternative. Enhancement goal met by objective: 3, 4, 5 An area containing a mix of native grasses and herbaceous species was identified south of Hausman Road, between Huesta Creek Channel Two and Huesta Creek Tributary A. Roughly 90 percent of this area would be preserved with approximately 17 native tree plantings along the eastern edge.

ASFPM May 2012 Table 2: Summary of Existing Conditions vs. Proposed Improvements ObjectiveExisting ConditionsProposed Actions Preserve heritage trees and preserve/enhance desirable environmental features 72 heritage trees in project review area 57 heritage trees to be preserved; 164 potential heritage trees (canopy value of 875 ft 2 or more) to be planted; 21.2 acres of native grass and wildflowers to be planted. Would preserve existing area containing a mix of native grasses and herbaceous species. Remove exotic plant species and plant native trees and grasses Numerous exotic and/or invasive species 67 mature (DBH ≥ 6 inches) invasive/exotic trees removed; 482 native trees planted Preserve and enhance canopy cover 16.3 acres of canopy cover in project area 12.2 acres would be preserved; 5.3 acres to be added Improve wildlife habitat Channelized creek, impervious cover, and numerous invasive species compromise value of wildlife habitat Plant 482 native trees and 21.2 acres of native grasses and wildflowers that provide food and shelter to wildlife Establish depressions No depressions are present 20 aquatic depressions totaling 21,600 sq ft (0.5 acres) proposed Establish riffles and pools No riffles or pools present 22 check dams/riffles to be placed within the three proposed watercourses Provide meandering low flow channel and increase channel sinuosity Existing sinuosity rating: none to moderate Proposed sinuosity rating: moderate to high

ASFPM May 2012 NWP 27 PCN Adapted NWP 14 application form to NWP 27 as per USACE recommendation Form simplifies the process Incorporated Mitigation Plan and previous documents as appendices NWP 27 approved without comment

ASFPM May 2012 Keys to Success Clearly defined goals Collaborative approach between and within agencies, program, and consultant team Communication (monthly progress meetings with program and team progress meetings)

ASFPM May 2012 Results / Benefits By coordinating the engineering design with permitting requirements: Sustainable design Buy-in from all stakeholders NWP 27 approved without comment Significant time savings Cost Savings Remove downstream homes from the floodplain Stream restoration/enhancement

ASFPM May 2012 Current Assessment Tools - TXRAM QHEI replaced by TXRAM Texas Rapid Assessment Method Aquatic Resource Compensation Calculator

ASFPM May 2012 Thank You’s Bexar County Flood Control Program City of San Antonio Storm Water Engineering USACE Fort Worth District AECOM Terra Design Group

ASFPM May 2012 Questions?