20220601-003c: 8020 Parmer Lane C8J-2021-0141.0A variance packet part 2 of 2 — original pdf

Backup

Case No. C8J-2021-0141.0A Supporting Exhibits for Variance Applications Table of Contents Exhibit 3 - Aerial Photo of Vicinity of Variance Request Area Exhibit 1 – Aerial Photo of Site Exhibit 2 – Site photos Exhibit 4 – Context Map Exhibit 5 – Topographic Maps Exhibit 6 – Cut/Fill Exhibits Exhibit 7 – Existing Conditions Exhibit 8 – Proposed Site Plan Exhibit 9 – Environmental Map Exhibit 10 – Environmental Resource Inventories Exhibit 11 – Preliminary Bridge Plans Exhibit 12 – Wetland Mitigation Sheets Exhibit 13 – Floodplain Modification Sheet Exhibit 14 – Preliminary Pond Plans Exhibit 15 – Riparian Zone Mitigation Fund Q7 form Exhibit 16 – Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health Backup page 1 of 188 EXHIBIT 1 – AERIAL PHOTO OF SITE Backup page 2 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E TEXAS 130 TEXAS 130 S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E O T O H P L A R E A I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 01 OF 01 Backup page 3 of 188 EXHIBIT 2 – SITE PHOTOS Backup page 4 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 1 Description: View of the paved portion of the project site facing southeast, on the southeastern corner of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 2 Description: A typical view of upland habitat that bordered the paved parking lot, on the southeastern portion of the project site. The habitat was a largely mixture of disturbed herbaceous vegetation. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 5 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 3 Description: A typical view of the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified on the project site, facing east, near the southeastern boundary of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 4 Description: A view of one of the freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands (W-01) identified on the project site. This wetland was topographically elevated and within the OHWM of the intermittent stream (S-01) identified. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 6 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 5 Description: A view of the second freshwater scrub-shrub wetland (W-02) observed on the project site. This wetland abutted the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 6 Description: A view of the freshwater pond (W-03) observed on the project site. This pond is located north of the intermittent stream (S-01) identified. The pond was topographically depressed and separated from S-01 by a natural berm. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 7 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 7 Description: Another view of the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified. This photo was taken on the western boundary of the project site. S-01 drained across an existing cobble road and diverged around the freshwater scrub-shrub wetland (W- 01) identified above. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 8 Description: A typical view of upland habitat near the center of the project site, facing northeast. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 8 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 9 Description: A view of the upland habitat observed on the northern portion of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 10 Description: A view of piles of fill observed on the southwestern portion of the project site facing southwest. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 9 of 188 EXHIBIT 3 – AERIAL PHOTO OF VICINITY OF VARIANCE REQUEST AREA Backup page 10 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I I I I T B H X E Y T N C V E C N A R A V F O O T O H P L A R E A I I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A TEXAS 130 01 OF 01 Backup page 11 of 188 EXHIBIT 4 – CONTEXT MAP Backup page 12 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E TEXAS 130 S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E P A M T X E T N O C / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 01 OF 01 Backup page 13 of 188 EXHIBIT 5 – TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS Backup page 14 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E LEGEND LOC CWQZ 100YR CEF CEF X X OHE OHE W X W X S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E N A L P G N D A R G G N T S X E I I I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 01 OF 04 Backup page 15 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E LEGEND LOC CWQZ 100YR CEF X CEF X OHE OHE W X W X T E E H S S H T - I E N I L H C T A M TEXAS 130 TEXAS 130 TOLL ROAD T E E H S S H T - I E N I L H C T A M TEXAS 130 S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E N A L P G N D A R G G N T S X E I I I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 02 OF 04 Backup page 16 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 TEXAS 130 SH 130 15' Inlet 10' Inlet T T 1 0 ' I n e t l LEGEND S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E N A L P G N D A R G I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 03 OF 04 Backup page 17 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E PUMP ROOM T T BUILDING 1 (MULTIFAMILY) FIRE RISER ROOM FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 2 (WAREHOUSE / OFFICE) T T BUILDING 3 (WAREHOUSE / OFFICE) BM #101 TEXAS 130 TEXAS 130 BM #102 TEXAS 130 LEGEND S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E N A L P G N D A R G L L A R E V O I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 04 OF 04 Backup page 18 of 188 EXHIBIT 6 – CUT/FILL EXHIBITS Backup page 19 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 TEXAS 130 LEGEND LOC E T OF TEX A S S T A SHELLY MITCHELL 103662 P R L O F E S IC E N S SIONAL R E E D E NE N G I S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T N A L P L L I F - T U C / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A SITE PLAN RELEASE SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHEET 08 OF 21 FILE NUMBER C8J-2021-0141.0APA APPLICATION DATE ____AUGUST 20, 2021_______ APPROVED BY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION OF 112 CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81, LDC) CASE MANAGER XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE ORD. #970905-A) DWPZ DDZ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE: ZONING ETJ Rev. 1 Correction 1 Rev. 2 Correction 2 Rev. 3 Correction 3 Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. 08 of 21 C8J-2021-0141.0APA Backup page 20 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E LEGEND LOC CWQZ 100YR CEF CEF PROFILE VIEW LEGEND S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 10801 N MOPAC EXPY, BLDG 3, STE 200 I AUSTIN, TX 78759 I 512.454.8711 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I I T B H X E E L F O R P D N A N A L P E V R D S S E C C A E G D R B I I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A SITE PLAN RELEASE SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHEET 08 OF 21 FILE NUMBER C8J-2021-0141.0APA APPLICATION DATE ____AUGUST 20, 2021_______ APPROVED BY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION OF 112 CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81, LDC) CASE MANAGER XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE ORD. #970905-A) DWPZ DDZ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE: ZONING ETJ Rev. 1 Correction 1 Rev. 2 Correction 2 Rev. 3 Correction 3 Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. FIG-1 C8J-2021-0141.0APA Backup page 21 of 188 EXHIBIT 7 – EXISTING CONDITIONS Backup page 22 of 188 E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 SH 130 SH 130 BM #102 SH 130 S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 10801 N MOPAC EXPY, BLDG 3, STE 200 I AUSTIN, TX 78759 I 512.454.8711 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I I I T B H X E S N O T D N O C G N T S X E I I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 01 OF 01 Backup page 23 of 188 EXHIBIT 8 – PROPOSED SITE PLAN Backup page 24 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 FLOODPLAIN NOTE: LEGEND PLANS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE PLANS ARE FOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE REVIEW ONLY. ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERMITTED WITH A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES BENCHMARKS: S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I N A L P G N D A R G E G D R B I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A SITE PLAN RELEASE SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHEET 06 OF 21 FILE NUMBER C8J-2021-0141.0APA APPLICATION DATE ____AUGUST 20, 2021_______ APPROVED BY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION OF 112 CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81, LDC) CASE MANAGER XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE ORD. #970905-A) DWPZ DDZ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE: ZONING ETJ Rev. 1 Correction 1 Rev. 2 Correction 2 Rev. 3 Correction 3 Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. 01 OF 02 C8J-2021-0141.0APA Backup page 25 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 15' Inlet 10' Inlet 1 0 ' I n e t l PUMP ROOM T T 15' Inlet 15' Inlet FIRE RISER ROOM FIRE RISER ROOM BUILDING 1 (MULTIFAMILY) BUILDING 2 (WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE) BUILDING 3 (WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE) T T LOT 2 l t e n I 5' 1 l t e n I 5' 1 SH 130 15' Inlet 15' Inlet l t e n I ' 5 1 BM #102 S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E N A L P E T S L L A R E V O I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 02 OF 02 Backup page 26 of 188 EXHIBIT 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL MAP Backup page 27 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet E N A L R E M R A P . E BM #101 TEXAS 130 T E E H S S H T - I E N I L H C T A M BM #102 TEXAS 130 LEGEND T E E H S S H T - I E N I L H C T A M S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 1 1 7 4.8 5 2.4 1 5 I 9 5 7 8 7 X T TIN, S U A I 0 0 2 E T S 3, G D L B Y, P X E C A P O M N 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T I I T B H X E P A M L A T N E M N O R V N E I / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A 01 OF 01 Backup page 28 of 188 EXHIBIT 10 – ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES Backup page 29 of 188 ±14.34-Acre Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory July 28, 2021 Mr. Warren Hayes – Senior Vice President Z Modular 227 West Monroe Street., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Re: Dear Mr. Hayes, Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. (Pape-Dawson) conducted a Environmental Resource Inventory (ERI) for the ±14.34-acre Parmer MF project site located in Travis County, Texas. The purpose of this report is to identify any critical environmental features (CEFs) that may exist within the project site. Based on Pape-Dawson’s ERI, the proposed project contains two freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands and four freshwater emergent wetlands which would be considered critical environmental features (CEFs). In addition to the wetlands identified, one intermittent stream was mapped within the project site. The conclusions presented in this report represent the professional opinion of Pape-Dawson Engineers and are limited to the conditions observed at the project site at the time and date of the field investigation. If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (210) 375- 9000 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. Valerie Collins, M.S., AICP Associate Vice President H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210408_51249-00_CoverLetter_ParmerMF.docx Backup page 30 of 188Case No.: (City use only) Environmental Resource Inventory For the City of Austin Related to LDC 25-8-121, City Code 30-5-121, ECM 1.3.0 & 1.10.0 The ERI is required for projects that meet one or more of the criteria listed in LDC 25-8-121(A), City Code 30-5-121(A). 1. SITE/PROJECT NAME: 2. COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT PROPERTY I ): 3. ADDRESS/LOCATION OF PROJECT: 4. WATERSHED: 5. THIS SITE IS WITHIN THE (Check all that apply) Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone* (See note below) .................. YES Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone*.................................. YES Edwards Aquifer 1500 ft Verification Zone* ....................... YES Barton Spring Zone* .......................................................... YES *(as defined by the City of Austin LDC 25-8-2 or City Code 30-5-2) No No No No Note: If the property is over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone, the Hydrogeologic Report and karst surveys must be completed and signed by a Professional Geoscientist Licensed in the State of Texas. 6. DOES THIS PROJECT PROPOSE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION?....... YES** NO If yes, then check all that apply: (1) The floodplain modifications proposed are necessary to protect the public health and safety; (2) The floodplain modifications proposed would provide a significant, demonstrable environmental benefit, as determined by a functional assessment of floodplain health as prescribed by the Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM), or (3) The floodplain modifications proposed are necessary for development allowed in the critical water quality zone under LDC 25-8-261 or 25-8-262, City Code 30-5-261 or 30-5-262. (4) The floodplain modifications proposed are outside of the Critical Water Quality Zone in an area determined to be in poor or fair condition by a functional assessment of floodplain health. ** If yes, then a functional assessment must be completed and attached to the ERI (see ECM 1.7 and Appendix X for forms and guidance) unless conditions 1 or 3 above apply. 7. IF THE SITE IS WITHIN AN URBAN OR SUBURBAN WATERSHED, DOES THIS PROJECT PROPOSE A UTILITY LINE PARALLEL TO AND WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE? ......................................................... YES*** NO ***If yes, then riparian restoration is required by LDC 25-8-261(E) or City Code 30-5-261(E) and a functional assessment must be completed and attached to the ERI (see ECM1.5 and Appendix X for forms and guidance). ( 8. There is a total of ) Critical Environmental Feature(s)(CEFs) on or within150 feet of the project site. If CEF(s) are present, attach a detailed DESCRIPTION of the CEF(s), color PHOTOGRAPHS, the CEF WORKSHEET and provide DESCRIPTIONS of the proposed CEF buffer(s) and/or wetland mitigation. Provide the number of each type of CEFs on or within 150 feet of the site (Please provide the number of CEFs ): 14.34-Acre Parmer MF236741, 236750, 526010Northwest of Intersection of E Parmer Lane and SH 130Gilleland Creek Watershed7Backup page 31 of 188) Spring(s)/Seep(s) (# ) Point Recharge Feature(s) (# s) Bluff(s) ( ( ) Canyon Rimrock(s) (# s) Wetland(s) Note: Standard buffers for CEFs are 150 feet, with a maximum of 300 feet for point recharge features. Except for wetlands, if the standard buffer is not provided, you must provide a written request for an administrative variance from LDC 25-8-281(C)(1) and provide written findings of fact to support your request. Request forms for administrative variances from requirements stated in LDC 25-8-281 are available from Watershed Protection Department. 9. The following site maps are attached at the end of this report (Check all that apply and provide): All ERI reports must include: Site Specific Geologic Map with 2-ft Topography Historic Aerial Photo of the Site Site Soil Map Critical Environmental Features and Well Location Map on current Aerial Photo with 2-ft Topography Only if present on site (Maps can be combined): Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone with the 1500-ft Verification Zone (Only if site is over or within 1500 feet the recharge zone) Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Water Quality Transition Zone (WQTZ) Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) City of Austin Fully Developed Floodplains for all water courses with up to 64-acres of drainage 10. HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT Provide a description of site soils, topography, and site specific geology below (Attach additional sheets if needed): Surface Soils on the project site is summarized in the table below and uses the SCS Hydrologic Soil Groups*. If there is more than one soil unit on the project site, show each soil unit on the site soils map. Soil Series Unit Names, Infiltration Characteristics & Thickness *Soil Hydrologic Groups Definitions (Abbreviated) Soil Series Unit Name & Subgroup** Group* Thickness (feet) A. Soils having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. See **Subgroup Classification Classification of Soil Series Table in County Soil Survey. WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 2 of 6 7See Table 1 & Exhibit 7 Backup page 32 of 188Description of Site Topography and Drainage (Attach additional sheets if needed): List surface geologic units below: Group Formation Member Geologic Units Exposed at Surface Brief description of site geology (Attach additional sheets if needed): Wells unplugged, capped and/or abandoned wells, etc.): Identify all recorded and unrecorded wells on site (test holes, monitoring, water, oil, There are (#) wells present on the project site and the locations are shown and labeled (# )The wells are not in use and have been properly abandoned. (# )The wells are not in use and will be properly abandoned. (# )The wells are in use and comply with 16 TAC Chapter 76. There are (# s) wells that are off-site and within 150 feet of this site. WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 3 of 6 Elevation at the project site ranged from 570 feet above sea level on the northernportion of the project site to approximately 540 feet above sea level on the southernportion. The project site had a general southeast sloping gradient. Taylor GroupNavarro and Taylor GroupsN/AThe project site is located on the Navrro and Taylor Groups, undivided (Knt) geologic unit. The USGS describes the upper 250 feet of the geologic unit as mostly silty, calcar. clay with sandst beds and concentrionary masses near top, some interbeds of sandst. near base. The lower 200 feet are quartz sand, fine grained, silty, locally calcar. concentrations in discontin. beds.The project site site is located outside the Edwards Aquifer and any associated zones. 00000Backup page 33 of 18811. THE VEGETATION REPORT Provide the information requested below: Brief description of site plant communities (Attach additional sheets if needed): There is woodland community on site If yes, list the dominant species below: . YES NO (Check one). Woodland species Common Name Scientific Name There is grassland/prairie/savanna on site If yes, list the dominant species below: .. YES NO (Check one). Grassland/prairie/savanna species Common Name Scientific Name There is hydrophytic vegetation on site If yes, list the dominant species in table below (next page): .. YES NO (Check one). WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 4 of 6 The project site is depicted within the "Northern Blackland Prairie Level IV Ecoregion of Texas. The vegetation identified on the project site largely reflected vegetation common to this ecoregion. Examples of vegetation identified on the project site include Cedar Elm (ulmus crassifolia), Ashe Juniper (Juniperus ashei), Sugar Hackberry (Celtis Laevigata), Texas Pricklypear (Opuntia engelmannii), annual bastardcabbage (Rapistrum rugosum), Johnson grass (Sorghum hale-pense), and maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani). Cedar ElmAshe JuniperSugar HackberryUlmus crassifoliaJuniperus asheiCeltis laevigataMaximilian SunflowerAnnual Bastard Cabbage Johnson GrassBermuda grassSouthern dewberryHelianthus maximilianiRapistrum rugosumSorghum halepenseCynodon dactylonRubus trivialisBackup page 34 of 188Hydrophytic plant species Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Status A tree survey of all trees with a diameter of at least eight inches measured four and one- half feet above natural grade level has been completed on the site. YES NO (Check one). 12. WASTEWATER REPORT Provide the information requested below. Wastewater for the site will be treated by (Check of that Apply): On-site system(s) City of Austin Centralized sewage collection system Other Centralized collection system Note: All sites that receive water or wastewater service from the Austin Water Utility must comply with City Code Chapter 15-12 and wells must be registered with the City of Austin The site sewage collection system is designed and will be constructed to in accordance to all State, County and City standard specifications. YES NO (Check one). Calculations of the size of the drainfield or wastewater irrigation area(s) are attached at the end of this report or shown on the site plan. YES NO Not Applicable (Check one). Wastewater lines are proposed within the Critical Water Quality Zone? YES NO (Check one). If yes, then provide justification below: WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 5 of 6 Spike RushBroadleaf CattailEleocharis palustrisTypha latifoliaSeaside BrookweedSamolus parviflorusOBLOBLOBLBackup page 35 of 188Is the project site is over the Edwards Aquifer? YES NO (Check one). If yes, then describe the wastewater disposal systems proposed for the site, its treatment level and effects on receiving watercourses or the Edwards Aquifer. 13. One (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the completed assessment have been provided. Date(s) ERI Field Assessment was performed: My signature certifies that to the best of my knowledge, the responses on this form accurately reflect all information requested. Date(s) Telephone Email Address Print Name Signature Name of Company Date For project sites within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, my signature and seal also certifies that I am a licensed Professional Geoscientist in the State of Texas as defined by ECM 1.12.3(A). P.G. Seal WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 6 of 6 03/30/2021John Lee Gonzalez III(361)585-8628johngonzalez@pape-dawson.comPape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.05/03/2021Backup page 36 of 188d n a l t e W d n a l t e W d n a l t e W 8020 East Parmer Lane, Manor, TX 7865314.34-Acre Parmer MF05/04/202103/30/2021John Lee Gonzalez III(361) 585-8628John Lee Gonzalez IIIjohngonzalez@pape-dawson.comWetlandWetlandW-01W-02-97.353869° 30.211576°dd-97.353833°dddd 30.211557°dd3510504Backup page 37 of 188 ±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory July 2021 Backup page 38 of 188 ±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory July 2021 Backup page 39 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Field Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 7 H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docxTOC - 1 Backup page 40 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Site Map Exhibit 3 – USGS Topographic Map (2019) Exhibit 4 – Floodplain Map Exhibit 5 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Exhibit 6 – Soils Map Exhibit 7 – Geologic Map Exhibit 8 – Edwards Aquifer Zone Map Exhibit 9 – Historical Aerial Photograph Map (1995) Exhibit 10 – Delineated Critical Environmental Features Map APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Photographs Appendix B – Wetland Determination Form H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docxTOC - 2 Backup page 41 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory INTRODUCTION Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. was contracted to conduct a City of Austin (COA) Environmental Resource Inventory (ERI) according to the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 25-8-121(A) and Title 30-5 for the approximately 14.34-acre Parmer MF project site in Travis County, Texas (Exhibit 1). The project site is located northwest of the intersection of East Parmer Lane and State Highway 130 in Austin, Texas The purpose of an ERI is to identify any critical environmental features (CEFs) within the project site. CEFs include bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves, faults/fractures, seeps, sinkholes, springs, and wetlands (LDC 25- Prior to a site investigation, a desktop review was performed utilizing the following resources to evaluate the project site for potential critical environmental features. • COA environmental data; • Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) oil/gas well data; • Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) water well data; • Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) water well data; • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) historical and current topographic maps; • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s digital flood insurance rate maps (dFIRM); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); • National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)’ Web Soil Survey; and • USGS geologic and structural feature data; • TCEQ Edwards Aquifer zone data; and • Google Earth Pro readily available historical and readily available current aerial imagery (Exhibit 2). 8-1; LDC 30-5-1). METHODS Desktop Review H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 1 Backup page 42 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Field Methods A Pape-Dawson environmental scientist familiar with the requirements of an ERI conducted a site investigation on March 30, 2021. Wetlands and other aquatic resources were delineated using the routine method described in the “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual” (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0)” (Great Plains Regional Supplement Version 2010). The site was evaluated for other potential CEFs with transects similar to the protocols for assessing wetlands and consistent with the guidelines set forth by the City of Austin. RESULTS Desktop Review Elevation at the site ranged from 570 feet above sea level (ASL) on the northern portion of the project site to approximately 540 feet ASL on the southern portion of the project site and had a general southeast sloping gradient. The COA depicts three tributaries within the project site. Two of the tributaries converge near the center of the project site and drain into the main tributary that transects the project site from west to east and drains southeast off the project site. The RRC, TWDB, and TCEQ do not depict any wells within 150 feet of the project site (Exhibit 2) (COA 2021; RRC 2021; TWDB 2021; TCEQ 2021). The project site is depicted on the 2019 USGS Manor, TX 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle map. The USGS depicts one pond near the center of the project site and one tributary just south of the depicted pond. The tributary transects the project site from west to east and drains southeast off the project site (Exhibit 3) (USGS 2019). Review of FEMA’s dFIRM panels 48453C0480J (effective August 18, 2014) reveal that the southern half of the project site is transected by the 100-year floodplain of Gilleland Creek Tributary 1C. This tributary feature is depicted to drain southeast into Gilleland Creek. Two additional unnamed tributary features are depicted to converge near the center of the project site before draining south into Gilleland Creek Tributary 1C (Exhibit 4) (FEMA 2021). H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 2 Backup page 43 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory USFWS NWI depict a freshwater pond near the center of the project site and a riverine wetland that transects the project site from west to east before draining off the project site (Exhibit 5) (USFWS 2021). According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, four soil units are mapped within the project site Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3); Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2); Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent (HeD2); and Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) are all depicted within the project site (Exhibit 6). The soil unit’s characteristics mapped within the project site are summarized in Table 1 (NRCS 2020b). Only Tw is considered a hydric soil by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NRCS 2020a). Table 1. Soil units within the project site according to the NRCS Web Soil Survey. Mapping Unit Soil Hydrologic Group Drainage Class Thickness Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3) Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2) Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent (HeD2) Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) D D D D Well drained 36-60 inches Well drained 40-65 inches Well drained 40-65 inches Moderately well drained >80 inches The project site is depicted wholly within the Navarro and Taylor groups, undivided (Knt) geologic unit (Exhibit 7). This geologic unit is described as areas where the Pecan Gap Chalk is not present because of gradation to marl, similar to that of the Marlbrook and Ozon Formations. The upper 250 feet is comprised of mostly silty, calcareous clay with sandstone beds and concretionary masses near the top, with some interbeds of sandstone near the base. The lower 200 feet of the unit is primarily composed of quartz sand, fine grained, silty locally calcareous concentrations in discontinued beds. The geologic age of the geologic unit is the Late Cretaceous epoch (Barnes 1983). H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 3 Backup page 44 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory The project site is not located within any designated TCEQ Edwards Aquifer zone (Exhibit 8) (TCEQ 2021). A historical aerial photograph from 1995 was available and utilized to effectively investigate the site for CEFs. One tributary feature is depicted to transect the southern portion of the project site from west to east. A pond is visible north of the tributary feature. No direct surface water connections exist between the tributary or the pond identified (Exhibit 9) (Google Earth Pro 2021). Field Results area during the time of the site visit. No bluffs, canyon rimrock, caves, faults/fractures, seeps, sinkholes, or springs were found within the study One intermittent stream, two freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands, four freshwater emergent wetlands, and one freshwater excavated pond were identified and mapped within the project site. Characteristics of the environmental features identified are described in Table 2 below. Table 2. Environmental Features Identified Within the Project Site. ID Feature Type OHWM Length Area (Linear Feet) (Linear Feet) (Acres) Jurisdictional Opinion OW-01 Freshwater Pond 0.2444 Non-Jurisdictional W-01 W-02 W-03 W-04 W-05 W-06 Freshwater Emergent Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Freshwater Emergent Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Freshwater Emergent Freshwater Emergent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0567 Jurisdictional N/A 0.0072 Jurisdictional 0.0990 Jurisdictional N/A N/A N/A 0.0036 Jurisdictional N/A 0.0047 Jurisdictional N/A 0.0021 Jurisdictional S-01 Intermittent Stream 8 799 0.280 Jurisdictional H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 4 Backup page 45 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory The intermittent stream identified (S-01) displayed flowing water and a consistent and well-defined ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) at the time of the site visit. A portion of S-01 had pooled near the south-central boundary of the project site. S-01 drains southeast and off the project site. Two freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands (W-02, W-04) were identified within the project site. These freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands were identified within the riparian corridor of the intermittent stream (S-01) identified. Specifically, W-02 was identified on the southwestern portion of the project site, within the OHWM of S-01, on a topographically elevated portion of the stream. W-04 abutted S-01 near the center of the project site. Four freshwater emergent wetlands (W-01, W-03, W-05, W-06) were identified within the project site. These wetlands were identified within the riparian corridor of the intermittent stream (S-01). W-01 is located east and on the edge of the project site. W-05 and W-06 are located where the intermittent steam drains southeast and off the project site. W-03 surrounds the freshwater pond (W-03) and is located near the center of the project site. A freshwater pond (W-03) was identified within the project site. The freshwater pond is located approximately 75 feet north of S-01, near the center of the project site. This pond is separated by a natural berm. No direct channelized surface water connection was observed between the pond and S-01. Site Photographs are included in Appendix A. Wetland Determination Forms are included in Appendix B. DISCUSSION Based on Pape-Dawson’s ERI, seven environmental features were identified within the project site. Of the seven environmental features, Pape-Dawson would not consider the freshwater pond (W-03) to be a CEF. The freshwater pond (OW-01) is excavated and would likely not be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. The earliest available USGS topographic map from 1968 does not depict a pond at the present-day location of the pond. USACE guidance mandates that artificial lakes and ponds are not jurisdictional if they are constructed or excavated in upland or non-jurisdictional waters. Because this pond is separated by a H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 5 Backup page 46 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory natural berm, there is likely no contribution of surface water flow to the pond in a typical year. Additionally, because the pond is artificial in nature and constructed in an upland; the freshwater pond (W-03) identified would likely not be considered jurisdictional. The COA mandates that permitted water quality wet ponds, roadside ditches, and ponds fed by wells or other artificial sources of hydrology are not considered wetlands. Because W-03 would not exist without artificial manipulation, Pape-Dawson would not consider W-03 to be a CEF. The intermittent stream and two freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands were delineated and mapped according to USACE and COA protocols. The COA’s critical water quality zone for the intermittent stream identified was utilized for this report. A 150-foot buffer was added to both freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands identified, in accordance with COA guidance. The intermittent stream (OW-01), two freshwater scrub-wetlands (W-02, W-04), four freshwater emergent wetlands, and associated buffers are depicted in Based on Pape-Dawson’s ERI, the proposed project contains two freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands and four freshwater emergent wetlands which would be considered critical environmental features (CEFs). In addition to the wetlands identified, one intermittent stream was mapped within the project site. The conclusions presented in this report represent the professional opinion of Pape-Dawson Engineers and are limited to the conditions observed at the project site at the time and date of the field investigation. Exhibit 10. CONCLUSION H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 6 Backup page 47 of 188Barnes, V.L. 1983. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Austin Sheet, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of ±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory REFERENCES City of Austin (CoA) Environmental Criteria Manual. Texas at Austin, Texas. Rule 161 - 14.22 (2014) Rule 161 - 14.25 (2014) Rule 161 - 18.05 (2018) City of Austin (CoA) Land Development Code (LDC). Section 25-8-121 Title 30-5 City of Austin (CoA) Standard Specifications. City of Austin (CoA). 2021. GIS Data. https://austintexas.gov/department/gis-data. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Google Earth Pro. 2021. Aerial Photography of the Project Site. 30.354798°, -97.592998°. Austin, Texas. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021a. Hydric Soils, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). 2021. Public GIS Viewer (Map). https://gis.rrc.texas.gov/GISViewer/. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2021. GIS Data Hub. https://gis- tceq.opendata.arcgis.com/. H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 7 - - - - - Backup page 48 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2021. Groundwater Data Viewer. https://www3.twdb.texas.gov/apps/WaterDataInteractive/GroundwaterDataViewer/?map=sdr. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report, Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Definitions of 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). Technical report ERDC/EL TR-10-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. “Overview of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.” www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/nwpr_fact_sheet_-_overview.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/data-download.html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Manor, TX Quadrangle, 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. United States Department of the Interior, USGS. H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_ERI\Draft\20210429_51249-00_ERI-Memo_ParmerMF.docx 8 Backup page 49 of 188 EXHIBITS Backup page 50 of 188 EXHIBIT 1 Location Map Backup page 51 of 188TRAVIS COUNTY i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . p a M n o i t a c o L _ 1 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 S G \ I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 9 5 : 5 4 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D *City of Austin Data (2021) Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Creeks* Wetlands* Critical Environmental Feature Setback* Creek Setback* Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone* 0 1,000 2,000 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet FEET ³ JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 01 Environmental Resources Inventory Parmer MF LOCATION MAP SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 52 of 188 EXHIBIT 2 Site Map Backup page 53 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . p a M e t i S _ 2 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 7 0 : 0 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D D SB N SH 130 SVR B 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 N 3 H 1 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S E P A R M E R L N Project Site *City of Austin Data (2021) Project Site 150-Foot Buffer 2-Foot Contours (2017)* Streets Creeks* Wetlands* Critical Environmental Feature Setback* Creek Setback* 0 150 300 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet FEET ³ JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 02 Environmental Resource Inventory Parmer MF SITE MAP SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 54 of 188 EXHIBIT 3 USGS Topographic Map (2019) Backup page 55 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . p a M o p o T _ 3 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 7 4 : 0 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer 0 2,000 1,000 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet USGS Manor, Tx 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle (2019) ³ Parmer MF JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 03 Environmental Resource Inventory USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (2019) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 56 of 188 EXHIBIT 4 Floodplain Map Backup page 57 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A l l i d x m . p a M I n a p d o o F _ 4 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 5 2 : 2 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D U n k n o w n n w o n k n U E PA R M E R LN B D S R V 0 S H 13 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S Unknown B 0 S 3 H 1 N S n n k n o w U G i l l e l a n d C r e e k T r i b u t a r y 1 C Unknown B 0 N 3 H 1 N S Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Streets Tributary (FEMA 2020) 100-Year Floodplain (FEMA 2020) FEMA FIRM Panel: 48453C0480J Effective Date: 08/18/2014 150 300 0 Unknown FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 04 Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory FLOODPLAIN MAP SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 58 of 188 EXHIBIT 5 National Wetlands Inventory Map Backup page 59 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A I d x m . p a M W N _ 5 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 1 4 : 2 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D Freshwater Pond R i v e r i n e B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S Freshwater Pond B 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 N 3 H 1 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S N SH 130 NB AT E PARMER TRN E PARMER LN E PA R M E R LN E P A R M E R L N E PA R M E R LN Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Streets NWI Data (2020) Freshwater Pond Riverine Freshwater Pond 0 150 300 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet FEET ³ JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 05 0 3 O 0 T P M 9 H 1 S 2 A B R N S E U N Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 60 of 188 EXHIBIT 6 Soils Map Backup page 61 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . p a M s l i o S _ 6 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 6 2 : 0 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D HeC2 FhF3 Tw E P A R M E R L N HeD2 HeC2 E PA R M E R L N B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 N 3 H 1 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S Project Site Streets Project Site 150-Foot Buffer NRCS Soil Units (2021) N SH 130 NB AT E PARMER TRN E PARMER LN E PA R M E R LN Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3) Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2) Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (HeD2) O Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) 0 T 0 P 3 M 9 H 1 S 2 A B R N S E U N 150 300 FEET 0 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 06 Environmental Resource Inventory Parmer MF Soils Map THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 62 of 188 EXHIBIT 7 Geologic Map Backup page 63 of 188TRAVIS COUNTY i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A i l d x m . p a M c g o o e G _ 7 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ n o i t a t n e m u c o D g n i t r o p p u S \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 6 2 : 5 4 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D B 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 N 3 H 1 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S E PARMER LN B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S PAR N SH 130 NB AT E MER TRN Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Geologic Units P O E B M 0 S A Navarro and Taylor Groups, undivided (Knt) D T B R 3 N 1 R 0 W V S 1,000 500 0 9 2 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet FEET O T 0 9 2 S E U 0 3 1 H S N P M A R B N ³ JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 07 Environmental Resource Inventory Parmer MF GEOLOGIC MAP THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 64 of 188 EXHIBIT 8 Edwards Aquifer Zone Map Backup page 65 of 188TRAVIS COUNTY Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . p a M r e f i u q A s d r a w d E _ 8 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 S G \ I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 4 2 : 1 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Edwards_Aquifer TYPE Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone within the Transition Zone Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Edwards Aquifer Transition Zone ³ 0 15,000 7,500 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 08 Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory EDWARDS AQUIFER ZONE MAP SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 66 of 188 EXHIBIT 9 1995 Historical Aerial Photograph Map Backup page 67 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T e b o G , l l a t i i , g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A l i l d x m . p a M h p a r g o t o h P a i r e A a c i r o t s H 5 9 9 1 _ 9 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 8 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F l z e a z n o g n h o j : r e s U M P 9 4 : 1 5 : 4 1 2 0 2 , 4 0 y a M : e t a D Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer 0 150 300 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet FEET ³ JOB NO. DATE 51249-00 May 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 09 Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory Historical Aerial Photograph (1995) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. Backup page 68 of 188 EXHIBIT 10 Delineated Critical Environmental Features Map Backup page 69 of 188i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T , e b o G l i , l a t i g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A l d x m . p a M s e r u t a e F a t n e m n o r i v n E a c i t i r l C _ 0 1 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 _ 1 2 7 0 1 2 0 2 \ S G I \ I R E _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F o l i o r T S : r e s U M A 0 4 : 0 0 : 0 1 1 2 0 2 , 8 2 l u J : e t a D DP-08 DP-09 DP-10 DP-07 W-03W-03 DP-06 OW-01 OW-01 W-01W-01 DP-05 W-02W-02 S-01S-01 DP-04 W-04W-04 DP-03 DP-01 B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 S 3 H 1 N S DP-02 W-05W-05 W-06W-06 Project Site 150-Foot CEF Setback Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Streets ProposedGrading !( Data Points (DPs) Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet E PA R M Freshwater Emergent Wetland E Freshwater Pond (Excavated) R L N Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE Jul 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 10 Parmer MF Environmental Resource Inventory DELINEATED CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 B 0 N 3 H 1 N S ³ FEET 0 0 B 3 H 1 D N 150 N S R V S Backup page 70 of 188 APPENDIX Backup page 71 of 188 APPENDIX A Site Photographs Backup page 72 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 1 Description: View of the paved portion of the project site facing southeast, on the southeastern corner of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 2 Description: A typical view of upland habitat that bordered the paved parking lot, on the southeastern portion of the project site. The habitat was a largely mixture of disturbed herbaceous vegetation. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 73 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 3 Description: A typical view of the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified on the project site, facing east, near the southeastern boundary of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 4 Description: A view of one of the freshwater scrub-shrub wetlands (W-01) identified on the project site. This wetland was topographically elevated and within the OHWM of the intermittent stream (S-01) identified. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 74 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 5 Description: A view of the second freshwater scrub-shrub wetland (W-02) observed on the project site. This wetland abutted the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 6 Description: A view of the freshwater pond (W-03) observed on the project site. This pond is located north of the intermittent stream (S-01) identified. The pond was topographically depressed and separated from S-01 by a natural berm. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 75 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 7 Description: Another view of the intermittent stream (S- 01) identified. This photo was taken on the western boundary of the project site. S-01 drained across an existing cobble road and diverged around the freshwater scrub-shrub wetland (W- 01) identified above. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 8 Description: A typical view of upland habitat near the center of the project site, facing northeast. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 76 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 9 Description: A view of the upland habitat observed on the northern portion of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 10 Description: A view of piles of fill observed on the southwestern portion of the project site facing southwest. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 77 of 188 APPENDIX B Wetland Determination Forms Backup page 78 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A None Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-01 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 1-2% Lat: 30.353935 Long: -97.593634 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. This Data Point was taken on the paved parking lot on the southern portion of the project site. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 100 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A/B) (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 79 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks Sampling Point: DP-01 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 80 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-02 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-2% Lat: 30.353604 Long: -97.592881 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: Hydric soils were observed; however, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology were not. The data point is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') Helianthus maximiliani 1. Bromus japonicus 2. Cynodon dactylon 3. Bowlesia incana 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Yes Yes No No FACU FACU FACU FACU 45 25 15 15 100 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 2 (A) (B) Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 100 100 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 400 400 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.00 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 81 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-6 6-14 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) Type1 Loc2 10YR 4/1 10YR 5/2 100 85 % 15 Texture Clay Clay 5YR 5/6 C M Rocks throughout Sampling Point: DP-02 Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils were observed; hydric soil parameter is met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 82 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-03 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2-5% Lat: 30.353982 Long: -97.592778 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: Hydric Soils were observed; however hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation were not. The data point is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') Celtis laevigata 1. 2. 3. 4. Celtis laevigata Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. Rubus trivialis Helianthus maximiliani Solidago altissima Polytaenia texana Helenium autumnale 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 25 25 10 10 45 45 15 5 5 115 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 4 (A) (B) FAC Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 5 35 105 5 150 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 10 105 420 25 560 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.73 FACU FACU FACU UPL FACW (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 83 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-8 8-14 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) Type1 Loc2 10YR 4/1 10YR 5/2 100 85 10YR 6/2 C M % 25 Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Sampling Point: DP-03 Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils were observed; hydric soil parameter is met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 84 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-04 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2-5% Lat: 30.354116 Long: -97.592938 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators were all observed. The Data Point (DP) is within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: Freshwater Forested Wetland Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Ptelea trifoliata Celtis laevigata Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Ptelea trifoliata Celtis laevigata Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. Rubus trivialis Solidago altissima Eleocharis palustris Ptilimnium capillaceum Samolus parviflorus Typha latifolia 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 25 5 5 10 20 15 35 25 15 15 10 5 5 75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No FAC FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 7 (A) (B) FAC FAC Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 71% (A/B) FACU FACU OBL FACW OBL OBL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 25 10 45 40 120 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 25 20 135 160 340 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.83 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Yes Yes No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is greater than 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 85 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-4 4-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) Type1 Loc2 10YR 4/1 10YR 6/1 100 65 7.5YR 5/8 C M % 35 Texture Clay Clay Sampling Point: DP-04 Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils were observed; hydric soil parameter is met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): 8 2 Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Five primary indicators and one secondary indicator of wetland hydrology were observed. The wetland hydrology parameter is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 86 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-05 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 2-5% Lat: 30.354325 Long: -97.593924 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: Riverine Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology and hydric soil indicators were all observed. The Data Point (DP) is within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: Freshwater Forested Wetland Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') Ulmus crassifolia 1. Celtis laevigata 2. 3. 4. Ptelea trifoliata Celtis laevigata Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') Torilis arvensis 1. Valerianella radiata 2. Anemone berlandieri 3. Eleocharis palustris 4. Typha latifolia 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 60 10 10 20 10 5 15 15 10 5 5 5 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No FAC FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 6 (A) (B) FAC FAC Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 10 10 35 20 75 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 10 20 105 100 235 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.13 UPL FACW UPL OBL OBL (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Yes No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is greater than 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 87 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) 10YR 4/1 85 5YR 5/6 % 15 Type1 Loc2 C M Texture Clay Sampling Point: DP-05 Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils were observed; hydric soil parameter is met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Four primary indicators and no secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed. The wetland hydrology parameter is met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 88 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-06 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 2-5% Lat: 30.354441 Long: -97.593651 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded (Tw) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Ulmus crassifolia Prosopis glandulosa Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') Solidago altissima 1. Torilis arvensis 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 5 5 10 85 15 100 Yes Yes Yes No Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 3 (A) (B) FAC FACU Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) FACU UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 5 90 15 110 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 15 360 75 450 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.09 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 89 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 10YR 4/1 100 Texture Clay Remarks Sampling Point: DP-06 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 90 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-07 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1-8% Lat: 30.354709 Long: -97.593271 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3) NWI Classification: Freshwater Pond Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') Torilis arvensis 1. Sonchus asper 2. Galium aparine 3. 4. Rapistrum rugosum 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 5 Yes No No No UPL FAC FACU UPL 75 10 5 5 95 Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 1 (A) (B) Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 10 5 80 95 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 30 20 400 450 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.74 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 91 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 10YR 4/1 100 Texture Clay Remarks Sampling Point: DP-07 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 92 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-08 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1-2% Lat: 30.355375 Long: -97.593029 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Prosopis glandulosa Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. Schizachyrium scoparium Engelmannia peristenia Anemone berlandieri 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 10 15 15 75 10 5 90 Yes Yes No No Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 2 (A) (B) FACU Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) FACU UPL UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 90 15 105 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 360 75 435 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.14 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 93 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 10YR 3/1 100 Texture Clay loam Remarks Sampling Point: DP-08 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 94 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A None Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-09 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 1-2% Lat: 30.355675 Long: -97.592602 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Prosopis glandulosa Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') Paspalum notatum 1. Schizachyrium scoparium 2. Engelmannia peristenia 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 5 5 5 85 5 5 95 Yes Yes No No Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 2 (A) (B) FACU Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) FAC FACU UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 85 10 5 100 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 255 40 25 320 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.20 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 95 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 10YR 3/1 100 Texture Clay loam Remarks Sampling Point: DP-09 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 96 of 188WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project Site: Parmer MF Applicant/Owner: Z Modular Investigator(s): JG Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRRA or MLRA): City/ County: Travis County State: TX Section, Township, Range: N/A Sampling Date: 3/30/2021 Sampling Point: DP-10 Plains LRR-J Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 1-2% Lat: 30.355130 Long: -97.592482 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3) NWI Classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation, Soil, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric Soils Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: None of the three parameters, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil indicators, were observed. The Data Point (DP) is not within a wetland. Habitat ID: Habitat Type: N/A Vegetation - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Tree stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. 3. 4. Prosopis glandulosa Ulmus crassifolia Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size : 15') 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size : 5') 1. 2. 3. 4. Schizachyrium scoparium Engelmannia peristenia Anemone berlandieri 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size : 30') 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 10 15 5 20 75 10 5 90 Yes Yes Yes No No Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 3 (A) (B) FACU FAC Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) FACU UPL UPL Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: OBL Species FACW Species FAC Species FACU Species UPL Species Column Totals: 5 90 15 110 Multiply by: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) 15 360 75 450 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.09 (B) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) No No No 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Remarks: (if observed, list morphological adaptations below). Percentage of dominant plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC is less than or equal to 50%. The hydrophytic vegetation parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 97 of 188SOIL Depth (inches) 0-16 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 10YR 3/1 100 Texture Clay loam Remarks Sampling Point: DP-10 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: (LRR H outside of MLRA 75 & 73) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soils Present? Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Indicators of hydric soils lacking; hydric soils parameter is not met. Hydrology Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Where not tilled Where tilled Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Depth (Inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?: Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indicators of wetland hydrology were present. The wetland hydrology parameter is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Region - Version 2.0 Backup page 98 of 188CITY OF AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR THE 8020 EAST PARMER TRACT Travis County, Texas November 2020 Submitted to: Vincent F. Barletta BDG Acquisitions, LLC 40 Shamut Road, Suite 200 Canton, Massachusetts 02021 Prepared By: aci consulting 1001 Mopac Circle Austin, Texas 78746 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver aci consulting a division of aci group, LLC Austin (512) 347.9000 • Denver (720) 440.5320 www.aci-consulting.net Backup page 99 of 188 Case No.: (City use only) Environmental Resource Inventory For the City of Austin Relating to the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 25-8, Title 30-5, ECM 1.3.0 & 1.10.0 Effective October 28, 2013 236741 & 247979 8020 East Parmer ERI The ERI is required for projects that meet one or more of the criteria listed in (LDC) Section 25-8-121(A), Title 30-5-121(A). 1. SITE/PROJECT NAME: ___________________________________________________ 2. COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT PROPERTY ID (#’s): __________________________ 3. ADDRESS/LOCATION OF PROJECT: _______________________________________ 4. WATERSHED: _________________________________________________________ 5. THIS SITE IS WITHIN THE (Check all that apply) Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone* (See note below) .................. (cid:133)YES (cid:133)No Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone* .................................. (cid:133)YES (cid:133)No Edwards Aquifer 1500 ft Verification Zone* ....................... (cid:133)YES (cid:133)No Barton Spring Zone* .......................................................... (cid:133)YES (cid:133)No *(as defined by the City of Austin – LDC 25-8-2) 8020 East Parmer Lane, Manor, Texas 78653 Harris Branch and Gilleland Creek Note: If the property is over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone, the Hydrogeologic Report and karst surveys must be completed and signed by a Professional Geoscientist Licensed in the State of Texas. 6. DOES THIS PROJECT PROPOSE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION?.......(cid:133)YES** (cid:133)NO If yes, then check all that apply: (cid:13) (1) The floodplain modifications proposed are necessary to protect the public health and safety; (cid:13) (2) The floodplain modifications proposed would provide a significant, demonstrable environmental benefit, as determined by a functional assessment of floodplain health as prescribed by the Environmental Criteria Manual, or (cid:13) (3) The floodplain modifications proposed are necessary for development allowed in the critical water quality zone under Section 25-8-261 or 25-8-262 of the LDC. (cid:13) (4) The floodplain modifications proposed are outside of the Critical Water Quality Zone in an area determined to be in poor or fair condition by a functional assessment of floodplain health. ** If yes, then a functional assessment must be completed and attached to the ERI (see Section 1.7 and Appendix X in the Environmental Criteria Manual for forms and guidance) unless conditions 1 or 3 above apply. 7. IF THE SITE IS WITHIN AN URBAN OR SUBURBAN WATERSHED, DOES THIS PROJECT PROPOSE A UTILITY LINE PARALLEL TO AND WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE? ......................................................... (cid:133)YES*** (cid:133)NO ***If yes, then riparian restoration is required by Section 25-8-261(E) of the LDC and a functional assessment must be completed and attached to the ERI (see Section 1.5 and Appendix X in the Environmental Criteria Manual for forms and guidance). 1 8. There is a total of _____ (#’s) Critical Environmental Feature(s)(CEFs) on or within150 feet of the project site. If CEF(s) are present, attach a detailed DESCRIPTION of the CEF(s), color PHOTOGRAPHS, the CEF WORKSHEET and provide DESCRIPTIONS of the proposed CEF buffer(s) and/or wetland mitigation. Provide the number of each type of CEFs on or within 150 feet of the site (Please provide the number of CEFs ): Backup page 100 of 188 ____ (#’s) Spring(s)/Seep(s) ____ (#’s) Point Recharge Feature(s) ____ (#’s) Bluff(s) ____ (#’s) Canyon Rimrock(s) ____ (#’s) Wetland(s) 1 Note: Standard buffers for CEFs are 150 feet, with a maximum of 300 feet for point recharge features. Except for wetlands, if the standard buffer is not provided, you must provide a written request for an administrative variance from Section 25-8-281(C)(1) and provide written findings of fact to support your request. Request forms for administrative variances from requirements stated in LDC 25-8-281 are available from Watershed Protection Department. 9. The following site maps are attached at the end of this report (Check all that apply and provide): All ERI reports must include: (cid:13) Site Specific Geologic Map with 2-ft Topography (cid:13) Historic Aerial Photo of the Site (cid:13) Site Soil Map (cid:13) Critical Environmental Features and Well Location Map on current Aerial Photo with 2-ft Topography Only if present on site (Maps can be combined): (cid:13) Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone with the 1500-ft Verification Zone(cid:3) (cid:3) (Only if site is over or within 1500 feet the recharge zone) (cid:13) Edwards Aquifer Contributing Zone(cid:3) (cid:13) Water Quality Transition Zone (WQTZ) (cid:13) Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ)(cid:3) (cid:13) City of Austin Fully Developed Floodplains for all water courses with (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) up to 64-acres of drainage 10. HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT – Provide a description of site soils, topography, and site specific geology below (Attach additional sheets if needed): Surface Soils on the project site is summarized in the table below and uses the SCS Hydrologic Soil Groups*. If there is more than one soil unit on the project site, show each soil unit on the site soils map. Soil Series Unit Names, Infiltration Characteristics & Thickness *Soil Hydrologic Groups Definitions (Abbreviated) Soil Series Unit Name & Subgroup** Group* Thickness (feet) See Q10-1. Surface Soils A. Soils having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. **Subgroup Classification – See Classification of Soil Series Table in County Soil Survey. WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 2 of 6 Backup page 101 of 188 Description of Site Topography and Drainage (Attach additional sheets if needed): According to the Manor U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle and the City of Austin 2015 two-foot contours, the elevation within the subject area ranges from 450 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 432 feet above MSL. The subject area slopes from southwest to northwest across the subject area (USGS 1988). (COA) City of Austin. 2015. Two-foot Topographic Lines. City of Austin: Austin, TX. (USGS) U.S. Geologic Survey. 1988. Manor Texas Quadrangle. USGS - Department of the Interior: Denver, CO. List surface geologic units below: Taylor Group Group Formation Navarro and Taylor Groups Member Geologic Units Exposed at Surface undivided (Knt) Alluvium (Qal) N/A N/A N/A Brief description of site geology (Attach additional sheets if needed): The subject area is mapped as Navarro and Taylor Groups undivided (Knt) and Alluvium (Qal) Knt - "in areas where Pecan Gap Chalk is not present because of gradation of marl similar to that of the Marlbrook and Ozan Formations" Qal - "Floodplain deposits, including indistinct low terrace deposite; clay, sand, and gravel; silt and clay, calcareous to surface, dark gray to dark brown; sand largely quartz; gravel, siliceous, mostly chert, quartzite, limestone, and petrified wood, along Colorado River much igneous and metamorphic rock, probably mostly reworked from terrace deposits; fluviatile morphology well preserved with point bars, oxbows, and abandoned channel segments" (USGS) U.S. Geologic Survey. 2020a. Texas Geology Web Map. Last accessed: November 25, 2020. https:// txpub.usgs. Wells – Identify all recorded and unrecorded wells on site (test holes, monitoring, water, oil, unplugged, capped and/or abandoned wells, etc.): There are ___ (#) wells present on the project site and the locations are shown and labeled 1 ___ (#’s)The wells are not in use and have been properly abandoned. ___ (#’s)The wells are not in use and will be properly abandoned. ___ (#’s)The wells are in use and comply with 16 TAC Chapter 76. There are ___ (#’s) wells that are off-site and within 150 feet of this site. 0 0 1 0 WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 3 of 6 Backup page 102 of 188 11. THE VEGETATION REPORT – Provide the information requested below: Brief description of site plant communities (Attach additional sheets if needed): The subject area contains but is not limited to honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata), common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), southern bristle grass (Setaria scheelei), late bonset (Eupatorium serotinum), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), velvety goldenrod (Solidago mollis), balloon vine (Cardiospermum halicacabum), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), annual bastardcabbage (Rapistrum rugosum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), silver bluestem (Bothriochloa saccharoides), maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani), Texas pricklypear (Opuntia engelmannii), gum bumelia (Sideroxylon lanuginosum), antelope horn (spider milkweed), broom-corn (Sorghum bicolor), common hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). There is woodland community on site …………………….(cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). If yes, list the dominant species below: Woodland species Common Name eastern red cedar Scientific Name Juniperus virginiana cedar elm common hoptree green ash common hackberry Ulmus crassifolia Ptelea trifoliata Fraxinus pennsylvanica Celtis occidentalis There is grassland/prairie/savanna on site……………..(cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). If yes, list the dominant species below: Grassland/prairie/savanna species Common Name Scientific Name silver bluestem Johnson grass southern bristle grass Bothriochloa saccharoides Sorghum halepense Setaria scheelei There is hydrophytic vegetation on site ………………..(cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). If yes, list the dominant species in table below (next page): WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 4 of 6 Backup page 103 of 188 Hydrophytic plant species Common Name Scientific Name spike rush broadleaf cattail Eleocharis palustris Typha latifolia Wetland Indicator Status OBL OBL A tree survey of all trees with a diameter of at least eight inches measured four and one- half feet above natural grade level has been completed on the site. (cid:3) (cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). 12. WASTEWATER REPORT – Provide the information requested below. On-site system(s) Wastewater for the site will be treated by (Check of that Apply): (cid:13) (cid:13) (cid:13) City of Austin Centralized sewage collection system Other Centralized collection system Note: All sites that receive water or wastewater service from the Austin Water Utility must comply with Chapter 15-12 of Austin City Code and wells must be registered with the City of Austin The site sewage collection system is designed and will be constructed to in accordance to all State, County and City standard specifications. (cid:3) (cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). Calculations of the size of the drainfield or wastewater irrigation area(s) are attached at the end of this report or shown on the site plan. (cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (cid:133) Not Applicable (Check one). (cid:3) (cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). If yes, then provide justification below: Wastewater lines are proposed within the Critical Water Quality Zone? WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Page 5 of 6 Backup page 104 of 188 Is the project site is over the Edwards Aquifer? (cid:133)YES (cid:133) NO (Check one). If yes, then describe the wastewater disposal systems proposed for the site, its treatment level and effects on receiving watercourses or the Edwards Aquifer. 13. One (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the completed assessment have been provided. 12/01/2020 Date(s) ERI Field Assessment was performed: ____________________________________ My signature certifies that to the best of my knowledge, the responses on this form accurately reflect all information requested. Stephen Meyer Print Name (512) 852-3860 Telephone Date(s) Signature aci consulting Name of Company smeyer@aci-group.net Email Address 12/7/2020 Date For project sites within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, my signature and seal also certifies that I am a licensed Professional Geoscientist in the State of Texas as defined by ECM 1.12.3(A). P.G. Seal Print Form Page 6 of 6 WPD ERM ERI-2014-01 Backup page 105 of 188List of Attachments for the Environmental Resource Inventory Form Question 8: Question 9: Q8-1. CEF Worksheet Q8-2. CEF Description Q9-3. Site Soils Map Topography Question 10: Q10-1. Surface Soils Q10-2. Wells Q9-1. Site Specific Geologic Map with 2-ft Topography Q9-2. Historic Aerial Photo of the Site (1996) Q9-4.Critical Environmental Features (CEF) current Aerial Photo with 2-ft Q9-5. City of Austin Critical Water Quality Zones (CRQZ) Q9-6. FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Q10-3. Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 1 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 Backup page 106 of 188 Question 8 Attachments City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 2 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver Backup page 107 of 188City of Austin Environmental Resource Inventory - Critical Environmental Feature Worksheet 1 2 3 4 9 Project Name: 8020 East Parmer ERI Project Address: 8020 East Parmer Lane , Manor, TX 78653 Site Visit Date: Environmental Resource Inventory Date: 12/1/2020 12/3/2020 5 6 7 8 Primary Contact Name: Phone Number: Prepared By: Email Address: Stephen Meyer (512) 347-3860 Stephen Meyer smeyer@aci-group.net {Wetland,Rimrock, Bluffs,Recharge Feature,Spring} (eg S-1) FEATURE TYPE FEATURE ID FEATURE LONGITUDE (WGS 1984 in Meters) (WGS 1984 in Meters) FEATURE LATITUDE WETLAND DIMENSIONS (ft) RIMROCK/BLUFF DIMENSIONS (ft) coordinate notation coordinate notation X Y Length Avg Height RECHARGE FEATURE DIMENSIONS Y Z Trend X Springs Est. Discharge cfs Wetland CEF-1 30.35432 DD -97.594091 DD 22 5.5 City of Austin Use Only CASE NUMBER: Please state the method of coordinate data collection and the approximate precision and accuracy of the points and the unit of measurement. Method Accuracy For rimrock, locate the midpoint of the segment that describes the feature. For wetlands, locate the approximate centroid of the feature and the estimated area. For a spring or seep, locate the source of groundwater that feeds a pool or stream. DMS DD YES NO X GPS Surveyed Other sub-meter meter > 1 meter X Professional Geologists apply seal below Wetland Rimrock Recharge Feature Spring Seep WPD ERM ERI-CEF-01 Page 7 Backup page 108 of 188 Q8-2. CEF Description Section 25-8-1 of the City of Austin (COA) LDC defines Critical Environmental Features (CEF) as “features that are of critical importance to the protection of environmental resources, and include bluffs, canyon rimrocks, caves, faults and fractures, seeps, sinkholes, springs, and wetlands.” Aerial photographs and topographic maps were utilized to orient surveyors in the field. If potential CEFs were identified in the field, they were carefully examined and recorded, and each potential feature was described, photographed and its location recorded using a handheld Garmin GPS unit. Field reconnaissance was conducted on December 1, 2020. One CEF was identified within the subject area. City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 4 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 Backup page 109 of 188 CEF-1 CEF-1 is an emergent wetland located in the southern portion of the subject area. CEF-1 was inundated at the time of the field visit. CEF-1 has wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation such as spike rush and cattails. The boundary between CEF-1 and the adjacent non-wetland was identified based on changes in hydrology, dominant plant composition, and soils. The 1% Annual Chance FEMA Flood Hazard Zone extends on subject area at CEF-1. The total area of CEF-1 is approximately 1,012 square feet, or approximately 0.023 acre within the subject area (Photo 1). 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Date: 12/1/2020 Feature CEF-1 Description CEF-1 in the southern portion of the subject area Photographer aci consulting Photo 1 Direction: North City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 5 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 Backup page 110 of 188Question 9 Attachments City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 8 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver Backup page 111 of 188d x m . y h p a r g o p o T t f - 2 h t i w p a M c i g o l o e G c i f i c e p S e t i S _ 1 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : Qal Knt ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet 400 Feet Subject Area 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-1. Site Specific Geologic Map with 2-ft Topography aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 112 of 188d x m . ) 6 9 9 1 ( e t i S e h t f o o t o h P l a i r e A c i r o t s i H _ 2 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet 400 Feet Subject Area 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-2. Historic Aerial Photo of the Site (1996) aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 113 of 188HeC2 d x m . p a M s l i o S e t i S _ 3 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : Tw HeC2 FhF3 HnB HeC2 FhF3 HnB Tw HnC2 HeD2 HeC2 ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet 400 Feet Subject Area 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-3: Site Soils Map aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 114 of 188Well d x m . y h p a r g o p o T t f - 2 h t i w p a M l l e W d n a F E C _ 4 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : CEF-1 ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 400 Feet Subject Area Critical Environmental Features 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet Well 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-4: CEF and Well Map with 2-ft Topography aci Project No.: 35-20-160 December 2020 Backup page 115 of 188d x m . ) Z Q W C ( e n o Z y t i l a u Q r e t a W l a c i t i r C n i t s u A f o y t i C _ 5 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet 400 Feet Subject Area Critical Water Quality Zone 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-5: City of Austin Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 116 of 188d x m . s e n o Z d r a z a H d o o l F A M E F _ 6 - 9 Q \ I R E _ 1 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : ³ 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee 400 200 DRAFT 0 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet 400 Feet Subject Area 8020 East Parmer ERI Q9-6: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 117 of 188 Question 10 Attachments City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 16 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver Backup page 118 of 188 Q10-1. Surface Soils According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2020), four soil map units occur within the subject area: Soil Type Group Thickness (inches) Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (FhF3) Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, eroded (HeC2) Houston Black clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes (HnB) Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded D D D D 36 to 60 inches 40 to 65 inches <80 inches <80 inches Reference Section: (USDA NRCS) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed on: November 25, 2020. Q10-2. Wells According to the Texas Water Development Board Well Viewer (TWDB 2020), one monitoring well is located in the northeastern portion to the subject area. Reference Section: (TWDB 2020) Texas Water Development Board. 2020. Well Viewer. Available at: https://www3.twdb.texas.gov/apps/WaterDataInteractive/GroundwaterDataVie wer. Accessed on: December 1, 2020. City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 17 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver Backup page 119 of 188Q10-3. Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health City of Austin ERI 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract 18 December 2020 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 austin • denver Backup page 120 of 1888020 EAST PARMER ERI TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS Project: 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health Date: December 4, 2020 To: Cityline Companies, LLC From: aci consulting | Stephen Meyer Subject: Supporting Documentation for the City of Austin Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health of the Zone 1 Floodplain Health and Zone 2 Critical Water Quality Zone On December 1, 2020, aci consulting conducted a City of Austin (COA) Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health (FAFH) for the Zone 1 – Floodplain Health and Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) within the 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract in Travis County, Texas. There were three transects within the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) (Zone 2), that were evaluated for the FAFH: T-1, T-2, and T-3 (Attachment A). There was one transect within the FEMA Floodplain Health Zone (Zone 1) that was evaluated for the FAFH: T-4 (Attachment B). The FAFH was conducted according to Appendix X of the COA Environmental Criteria Manual (ECM) along all four transects. As defined in Appendix X of the ECM for FAFH’s, a typical transect is 100 meters. For this study, each transect was examined at three 100m2 plots: at 5 meters, 50 meters, and 95 meters. The results were then averaged to represent each transect. Lastly, all three transects in Zone 2 were averaged to quantify the area as a whole. The Zone 1 and Zone 2 scores and the assessed condition for each transect are shown below in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. austin • denver aci consulting a division of aci group, LLC Austin (512) 347.9000 • Denver (720) 440.5320 www.aci-consulting.net Backup page 121 of 188Zone 2 Transects T-1, T-2, and T-3 were positioned within the CWQZ; therefore, the methods and scoring for Zone 2: Critical Water Quality Zone were used during the field investigations. Attachment A shows the placement of the transects within the subject area. Attachment C contains the field investigation findings of the FAFH in Zone 2: Critical Water Quality Zone. Transect 1 was located in the CWQZ associated with the unnamed creek and Transect 2 and 3 were located in CWQZ associated with Harris Branch. The findings for T-1 are depicted in Table 1 and the findings for T-2 and T-3 are in Table 2. Overall, the FAFH score for T-1 was 14 points, indicating that the current assessed conditions are “Fair”. The overall average FAFH score for T-2 and T-3 was 20.5 points, indicating that the current assessed conditions are “Good”. Table 1: Zone 2 Scores and Assessed Conditions for each Transect Transect Zone 1 Score Assessed Condition T-1 14 Fair Table 2: Zone 2 Scores and Assessed Conditions for each Transect Transect T-2 T-3 Average Zone 1 Score 19 22 20.5 Assessed Condition Good Good Good Zone 1 Transect T-4 was positioned within the FEMA Floodplain; therefore, the methods and scoring for Zone 1: Floodplain Health were used during the field investigation. Attachment B shows the placement of the transect within the subject. Attachment D contains the field investigation findings of the FAFH in Zone 1: Floodplain Health. Transect 4 was located in the FEMA Floodplain associated with Harris Branch. The findings for T-4 are depicted in Table 3. Overall, the average FAFH score was 15 points, indicating that the current assessed conditions for both zones are “Good”. 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 122 of 188Table 3: Zone 1 Scores and Assessed Conditions for each Transect Transect Zone 1 Score Assessed Condition T-4 Good 15 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 123 of 188ATTACHMENT A ZONE 2 TRANSECT LOCATIONS 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 124 of 188d x m . 2 e n o Z _ Z Q W C e h t f o t n e m s s e s s A l a n o i t c n u F _ A t n e m h c a t t A \ H F A F _ 2 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : T-2 T-3 T-1 ³ This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. 400 200 DRAFT 0 400 Feet 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet Subject Area Critical Water Quality Zone NHD Flowlines Transects 8020 East Parmer ERI Attachment A: Functional Assessment of the CWQZ - Zone 2 aci Project No.: 35-20-174 December 2020 Backup page 125 of 188ATTACHMENT B ZONE 1 TRANSECT LOCATIONS 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 126 of 188d x m . 1 e n o Z _ h t l a e H n i a l p d o o l F e h t f o t n e m s s e s s A l a n o i t c n u F _ B t n e m h c a t t A \ H F A F _ 2 _ k s a t \ s p a m \ s i g \ I R E r e m r a P 0 2 0 8 4 7 1 - 0 2 - 5 3 \ s r e d l o F t c e j o r P \ P : T-4 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard This map is intended for planning purposes only. All map data should be considered preliminary. All boundaries and designations are subject to confirmation. Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee ³ 400 200 DRAFT 0 400 Feet 1:4,800 1 inch = 400 feet Subject Area Transect NHD Flowlines Critical Water Quality Zone 8020 East Parmer ERI aci Project No.: 35-20-174 Attachment B: Functional Assessment of the Floodplain Health - Zone 1 December 2020 Backup page 127 of 188ATTACHMENT C FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH FORMS ZONE 2 – CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 128 of 188Scoring: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone 8020 East Parmer ERI Site/Project Name: Transect Number: T-1 12/01/2020 10:13 AM Date: Staff (if applicable): Time: GN & MF Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Score GFGF Gap Frequency A visual assessment of the number of gaps in vegetation. 0 - 20% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 20% - 40% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 40 - 60% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation > 60% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 7 or more pieces of large woody debris 5 - 6 pieces of large woody debris 3 - 4 pieces of large woody debris 2 or less pieces of large woody debris 0 - 200 pounds per square inch 201 - 400 pounds per square inch 401 - 600 pounds per square inch > 600 pounds per square inch > 65% canopy; or > 50% canopy and > 50% understory 51 - 65% canopy; or 0 - 50% canopy and > 40% understory Tree Demography An assessment of the age class distribution of all canopy tree species. Canopy tree species are present in all 4 age classes Canopy tree species are present in 3 of 4 age classes 31 - 50% canopy; or 0 - 30% canopy and > 30% understory Canopy tree species are present in 2 of 4 age classes 0 - 30% canopy; or 0 - 15% canopy and 0 - 30% understory Canopy tree species are present in only 1 age class or no trees > 65% of trees are FAC+ or greater 50 - 65% of trees are FAC+ or greater 25 - 49% of trees are FAC+ or greater < 25% of trees are FAC+ or greater Large Woody Debris An evaluation of the amount of large woody debris. Soil Compaction An assessment of the bulk density of the soil. Structural Diversity An evaluation of the canopy and understory vegetation. Wetland Tree Status Percent of total trees that are defined as FAC+ or greater with respect to wetland status. Riparian Zone Width A measure of the width of the undisturbed riparian zone. > 18 meters or > 75% of the CWQZ 12 - 18 meters or 50 - 75% of the CWQZ 6 - 12 meters or 25 - 49% of the CWQZ < 6 meters or < 25% of the CWQZ Zone 2 Score: 14 4 1 4 2 1 1 1 Assessed Condition (Circle One) Excellent: 25 - 28 Good: 18 - 24 Fair: 11 - 17 Fair: 11 - 17 Poor: 7 - 10 Backup page 129 of 188Site/Project Name: Transect Number: Gap Frequency Number of 1 meter gaps: Percent of Transect: Soil Compaction Structural Diversity Tree Demography Field Sheet: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone Date: Time: Staff (if applicable): % Large Woody Debris Number of Large Woody Debris Pieces: Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi Average for Plot 1: psi Average for Plot 2: psi Average for Plot 3: psi Average for All Sample Plots: _____________psi Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Canopy: % Understory: % Canopy: % Understory: % Canopy: % Understory: % Average for All Sample Plots: Canopy: % Understory: % Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Number of Age Classes: Number of Age Classes: Number of Age Classes: Average for All Sample Plots: Backup page 130 of 188Site/Project Name: Transect Number: Wetland Tree Status Riparian Zone Width Field Sheet: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone Date: Time: Staff (if applicable): Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: % % % Average for All Sample Plots: _____________% Measurement 1 (5 meters) Measurement 2 (50 meters) Measurement 3 (95 meters) Riparian Zone Width: m Riparian Zone Width: m Riparian Zone Width: m Average for All Measurements: m Backup page 131 of 188Scoring: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone 8020 East Parmer ERI Site/Project Name: Transect Number: T-2 12/01/2020 12:49 PM Date: Staff (if applicable): Time: GN & MF Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Score GFGF Gap Frequency A visual assessment of the number of gaps in vegetation. 0 - 20% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 20% - 40% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 40 - 60% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation > 60% of riparian area has visual gaps in vegetation 7 or more pieces of large woody debris 5 - 6 pieces of large woody debris 3 - 4 pieces of large woody debris 2 or less pieces of large woody debris 0 - 200 pounds per square inch 201 - 400 pounds per square inch 401 - 600 pounds per square inch > 600 pounds per square inch > 65% canopy; or > 50% canopy and > 50% understory 51 - 65% canopy; or 0 - 50% canopy and > 40% understory Tree Demography An assessment of the age class distribution of all canopy tree species. Canopy tree species are present in all 4 age classes Canopy tree species are present in 3 of 4 age classes 31 - 50% canopy; or 0 - 30% canopy and > 30% understory Canopy tree species are present in 2 of 4 age classes 0 - 30% canopy; or 0 - 15% canopy and 0 - 30% understory Canopy tree species are present in only 1 age class or no trees > 65% of trees are FAC+ or greater 50 - 65% of trees are FAC+ or greater 25 - 49% of trees are FAC+ or greater < 25% of trees are FAC+ or greater Large Woody Debris An evaluation of the amount of large woody debris. Soil Compaction An assessment of the bulk density of the soil. Structural Diversity An evaluation of the canopy and understory vegetation. Wetland Tree Status Percent of total trees that are defined as FAC+ or greater with respect to wetland status. Riparian Zone Width A measure of the width of the undisturbed riparian zone. > 18 meters or > 75% of the CWQZ 12 - 18 meters or 50 - 75% of the CWQZ 6 - 12 meters or 25 - 49% of the CWQZ < 6 meters or < 25% of the CWQZ Zone 2 Score: 19 4 2 4 4 2 2 1 Assessed Condition (Circle One) Excellent: 25 - 28 Good: 18 - 24 Good: 18 - 24 Fair: 11 - 17 Poor: 7 - 10 Backup page 132 of 188Site/Project Name: Transect Number: Gap Frequency Number of 1 meter gaps: Percent of Transect: Soil Compaction Structural Diversity Tree Demography Field Sheet: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone Date: Time: Staff (if applicable): % Large Woody Debris Number of Large Woody Debris Pieces: Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi #1: psi #2: psi #3: psi Average for Plot 1: psi Average for Plot 2: psi Average for Plot 3: psi Average for All Sample Plots: _____________psi Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Canopy: % Understory: % Canopy: % Understory: % Canopy: % Understory: % Average for All Sample Plots: Canopy: % Understory: % Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Number of Age Classes: Number of Age Classes: Number of Age Classes: Average for All Sample Plots: Backup page 133 of 188Site/Project Name: Transect Number: Wetland Tree Status Riparian Zone Width Field Sheet: Zone 2 – Critical Water Quality Zone Date: Time: Staff (if applicable): Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: Number of FAC+ or Greater Trees: Total Number of Trees: Percent FAC+ or Greater: % % % Average for All Sample Plots: _____________% Measurement 1 (5 meters) Measurement 2 (50 meters) Measurement 3 (95 meters) Riparian Zone Width: m Riparian Zone Width: m Riparian Zone Width: m Average for All Measurements: m Backup page 134 of 188ATTACHMENT D FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH FORMS ZONE 1 – FLOODPLAIN HEALTH 8020 East Parmer ERI Tract Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health aci Project No: 35-20-174 December 2020 austin • denver Backup page 135 of 188Scoring: Zone 1 – Floodplain Health 8020 East Parmer ERI Site/Project Name: Transect Number: T-4 12/1/2020 Date: 12:08 PM5 Time: Staff (if applicable): GN & MF Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Score Gap Frequency A visual assessment of the number of gaps in vegetation. 0 - 20% of area has visual gaps in vegetation 20% - 40% of area has visual gaps in vegetation 40 - 60% of area has visual gaps in vegetation > 60% of area has visual gaps in vegetation Large Woody Debris An evaluation of the amount of large woody debris. Soil Compaction An assessment of the bulk density of the soil. Structural Diversity An evaluation of the canopy and understory vegetation. 7 or more pieces of large woody debris 5 - 6 pieces of large woody debris 3 - 4 pieces of large woody debris 2 or less pieces of large woody debris 0 - 200 pounds per square inch 201 - 400 pounds per square inch 401 - 600 pounds per square inch > 600 pounds per square inch > 65% canopy; or > 50% canopy and > 50% understory 51 - 65% canopy; or 0 - 50% canopy and > 40% understory 31 - 50% canopy; or 0 - 30% canopy and > 30% understory 0 - 30% canopy; or 0 - 15% canopy and 0 - 30% understory Tree Demography An assessment of the age class distribution of all canopy tree species. Canopy tree species are present in all 4 age classes Canopy tree species are present in 3 of 4 age classes Canopy tree species are present in 2 of 4 age classes Canopy tree species are present in only 1 age class or no trees 4 1 4 4 2 Zone 1 Score: 15 Assessed Condition (Circle One) Excellent: 18 - 20 Good: 13 - 17 Fair: 8 - 12 Poor: 5 - 7 Backup page 136 of 188Field Sheet: Zone 1 – Floodplain Health Site/Project Name: 8020 East Parmer ERI Transect Number: T-4 Gap Frequency 0 Number of 1 meter gaps: 0 Percent of Transect: Soil Compaction % 12/1/2020 Date: 12:08 PM Time: Staff (if applicable): GN & MF Large Woody Debris 0 Number of Large Woody Debris Pieces: Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) 120 #1: 160 psi #2: psi #3: 140 psi 190 #1: 200 psi #2: psi #3: psi 140 #1: 150 180 psi #2: psi #3: psi 210 Average for Plot 1: 140 psi Average for Plot 2: 176.66 psi Average for Plot 3: psi Average for All Sample Plots: _____________psi 165.55 Structural Diversity Tree Demography Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Canopy: % Understory: % 100 80 Canopy: 100 % Understory: % Canopy: 50 % Understory: 100 % 100 Average for All Sample Plots: Canopy: % Understory: % 76.66 100 Plot 1 (5 meters) Plot 2 (50 meters) Plot 3 (95 meters) Number of Age Classes: 3 1 Number of Age Classes: 2 Number of Age Classes: Average for All Sample Plots: 2 Backup page 137 of 188 EXHIBIT 11 – PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLANS Backup page 138 of 188DRAFT THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RYAN C. LAURENT, P.E. LIC. #131995 05/02/2022 IT SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. 1 : 3 20'-0" BAS-C PROP RETAINING WALL CEF BUFFER 13.00' WINGWALL EXISTING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE CEF BUFFER PROP RETAINING WALL BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 1+53.37 BEGIN BRIDGE FACE OF BACKWALL ABUTMENT NO. 1 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 1+49.37 EL = 555.26' ℄ BENT NO. 2 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 2+44.37 S T R E A M F L O W " 0 - ' 1 T E S F F O " 0 - ' 1 L I A R ℄ BENT NO. 3 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 3+74.37 BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 2+96.71 ℄ BENT NO. 4 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 4+61.87 BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 4+46.71 E " 4 2 . 8 3 ' 5 2 ° 2 6 S S T N E B L L A P Y T ( ) S T N E M T U B A D N A END BRIDGE FACE OF BACKWALL ABUTMENT NO. 5 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 5+49.37 EL = 557.99' PROP ROW PROP RETAINING WALL 1+00 CSAB (OPT. 2) ℄ GIRDER NO. 1 3:1 2+00 3+00 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY & PGL 4+00 N 27° 34' 21.76" E NOM FACE OF SSTR RAIL 5+00 3:1 CSAB (OPT. 2) 6+00 SEJ-M(4") ℄ GIRDER NO. 5 SEJ-M(4") " 0 - ' 0 2 " 0 - ' 0 2 L L A R E V O " 0 - ' 0 4 Y A W D A O R " 0 - ' 8 3 " 0 - ' 2 1 E N A L " 0 - ' 2 1 I N A D E M " 0 - ' 2 1 E N A L % 0 . 2 % 0 . 2 BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 2+21.68 " 0 - ' 1 L I A R " 0 - ' 1 T E S F F O CONST/ CONTROL JT CONST/ CONTROL JT NOM FACE OF SSTR RAIL BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 3+70.37 PROP ROW BRIDGE LIGHTING STA 5+22.18 EXISTING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE PLAN OVERALL LENGTH OF TYPE SSTR RAIL = 431'-0" (RT) OVERALL LENGTH OF TYPE SSTR RAIL = 400'-0" (LT) OVERALL LENGTH OF BRIDGE = 400'-0" 305'-0" Tx54 I-GIRDER UNIT (130.00'-87.50'-87.50') 640 630 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 95'-0" Tx34 I-GIRDER UNIT (95.00') BEGIN BRIDGE FACE OF BACKWALL ABUTMENT NO. 1 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 1+49.37 EL = 555.26' 0 0 . 5 7 + 1 : S C V E 9 7 . 5 5 5 : E C V E 1.23% . 7 3 4 9 + 1 : S C V B 3 0 . 6 5 5 : E C V B D PROP RET. WALL 4 - 36" DIA DR SH x XX' . 7 3 4 4 + 2 : S C V E 6 4 . 6 5 5 : E C V E D " 0 - ' 8 " H " 2 VERTICAL CURVE DATA HIGH POINT ELEV: 2+44.37 HIGH POINT STA: 556.46' PVI STA: 2+19.37 PVI ELEV: 556.34' AD: 0.73% K: 68.30 50.00' VC 9 2 . 5 5 5 4 7 . 0 4 5 2+00 LOW CHORD ELEV = 551.11' 1 VERTICAL CURVE DATA HIGH POINT ELEV: 1+75.00 HIGH POINT STA: 555.79' PVI STA: 1+25.00 PVI ELEV: 555.18' AD: 6.74% K: 14.83 100.00' VC 5 1 . 2 5 5 0 0 . 1 4 5 1+00 END BRIDGE FACE OF BACKWALL ABUTMENT NO. 5 ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY STA 5+49.37 EL = 557.99' PGL TOP OF DECK TOP OF SSTR RAIL 0.50% D D D D HW(25) = 546.25' HW(100) = 548.39' 3 - 36" DIA DR SH x XX' 3 - 36" DIA DR SH x XX' " 0 - ' 8 " H " 3 " 0 - ' 8 " H " 4 PROP RET. WALL EXIST GROUND AT ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 4 - 36" DIA DR SH x XX' 3 - 36" DIA DR SH x XX' 5 5 0 . 6 5 5 9 9 . 8 3 5 3+00 ELEVATION 5 5 . 6 5 5 9 2 . 1 4 5 4+00 5 0 . 7 5 5 9 9 . 3 4 5 5+00 SEJ-M(4") 1 : 3 20'-0" BAS-C PROP RETAINING WALL 18.00' WINGWALL 4 2 . 9 7 + 5 : S C V B 4 1 . 8 5 5 : E C V B NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. DESIGNED ACCORDING TO AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, 8TH EDITION (2017) AND CURRENT INTERIMS. SEE BORING LOG SHEET FOR BORING LOG INFORMATION. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE HORIZONTAL AND MUST BE CORRECTED FOR GRADE AND CROSS SLOPE. THE "H" VALUES SHOWN ARE ESTIMATED COLUMN HEIGHTS AND ARE FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALCULATING THE ACTUAL COLUMN HEIGHTS BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. EXTEND DRILLED SHAFTS TO THE LENGTH SHOWN OR LONGER AS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) DRILLED SHAFT DIAMETERS INTO THE BEARING STRATA. BEARING CONDITIONS: D = DOWEL BLANK = NO DOWEL SSTR RAIL OPTIONAL SIDE SLOT DRAINS ARE NOT PERMITTED. MEDIAN ON BRIDGE IS TO BE STRIPED ONLY. A RAISED MEDIAN IS NOT PERMITTED. HYDRAULIC DATA UPSTREAM BRIDGE FACE PROPOSED: HW(25) = 546.25' V(25) = 2.08 FPS Q (25) = 3,060 CFS HW(100) = 548.39' V (100) = 2.74 FPS Q (100) = 4,570 CFS 640 630 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 550 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 © / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A , E N A L R E M R A P T S A E 0 2 0 8 T U O Y A L E G D R B I VERTICAL CURVE DATA HIGH POINT ELEV: 6+79.24 HIGH POINT STA: 560.21' PVI STA: 6+29.24 PVI ELEV: 558.39' AD: 3.14% K: 31.85 100.00' VC 5 5 . 7 5 5 0 5 . 9 4 5 6+00 RD-A S-01 SP-2021-XXXX Backup page 139 of 188℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ℄ PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 1'-0" RAIL 1'-0" RAIL 1'-0" RAIL 1'-0" RAIL NOMINAL FACE OF SSTR RAIL NOMINAL FACE OF SSTR RAIL NOMINAL FACE OF SSTR RAIL NOMINAL FACE OF SSTR RAIL 1'-0" OFFSET 12'-0" LANE 12'-0" MEDIAN 12'-0" LANE 1'-0" OFFSET 1'-0" OFFSET 12'-0" LANE 12'-0" MEDIAN 12'-0" LANE 1'-0" OFFSET ℄ GIRDER NO. 1 ℄ GIRDER NO. 5 ℄ GIRDER NO. 1 ℄ GIRDER NO. 5 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 40'-0" OVERALL 38'-0" ROADWAY 2.0% 2.0% " 2 1 8 B A L S PGL 4 SPA AT 8'-6" = 34'-0" Tx34 I-GIRDERS TYPICAL SECTION SPAN 1 40'-0" OVERALL 38'-0" ROADWAY 2.0% 2.0% " 2 1 8 B A L S PGL 4 SPA AT 8'-6" = 34'-0" Tx54 I-GIRDERS TYPICAL SECTION SPANS 2-4 © / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A , E N A L R E M R A P T S A E 0 2 0 8 I S N O T C E S L A C P Y T E G D R B I I S-02 DRAFT THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RYAN C. LAURENT, P.E. LIC. #131995 05/02/2022 IT SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. SP-2021-XXXX Backup page 140 of 188 EXHIBIT 12 – WETLAND MITIGATION SHEETS Backup page 141 of 188Wetland 1: Area within site boundary: 2529 sf Area disturbed: 2529 sf Wetland 2: Area within site boundary: 314 sf Area disturbed: 202 sf 10' Inlet 10' Inlet Current CEF Setback Extended CEF Boundary Extended CEF Boundary Current CEF Setback 15' Inlet 10' Inlet 1 0 ' I n e t l PUMP ROOM T T Current CEF Setback Extended CEF Boundary l t e n I ' 5 1 Wetland 3: Area within site boundary: 299 sf Area disturbed: 0 sf Extended CEF Boundary Current CEF Setback Extended CEF Boundary 15' Inlet 15' Inlet R 1601 Rio Grande Street Suite 450 Austin, Texas 78701 T 512.770.4503 hitchcockdesigngroup.com 15' Inlet 07.16.2021 PROJECT 8020 Parmer/ SH130 NW 8020 East Parmer Lane Austin, Texas CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Pape Dawson 10800 North Mopac Expressway Building 3, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78759 l t e n I ' 5 1 l t e n I ' 5 1 COMPLETENESS CHECK JULY 16, 2021 REVISIONS No Date Issue CHECKED BY DTR DRAWN BY JTH SHEET TITLE Wetland Mitigation SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50' g w d . t e S t i m r e P n o i t a g i t i M d n a l t e W \ t i m r e P 0 0 \ s c h p a r G 9 0 i \ e n a L r e m r a P l i - r a u d o M Z \ n g s e D G T S \ s t c e o r P j \ : S CALCULATIONS CEF Buffer Area Disturbed (Outside Wetland) - 2.05 acres Wetland Area Disturbed - 0.06 acres Total Site Area Disturbed - 2.11 acres LEGEND Wetland Note: In the CEF mitigation and floodplain restoration area, the top 12 inches of topsoil shall be used onsite and reseeded with appropriate 604S.6, native grasses and forbs, and provide temporary irrigation in compliance with ECM P1. This is a condition of the environmental variances granted for the grading in the floodplain and fill greater than 4'. Disturbed Wetland Area - 0.06 acres Disturbed Area Outside Wetland - 2.05 acres Extended CEF Area - 2.11 acres CEF Current CEF Setback Extend CEF Boundary SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER__________________APPLICATION DATE_______________ SP-2021-XXXX JULY 16, 2021 APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON_______________UNDER SECTION_______ OF CHAPTER__________OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. 25-5 EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81,LDC)__________CASE MANAGER__________________ XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE (ORD.#970905-A)__________DWPZ______DDZ______ Know what's below. Call before you dig. WARNING: CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY PRESENCE AND EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. __________________________________________________________________________ 0' 25' 50' 150' Development Services Department RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE:_____________ZONING_____________ ETJ Rev. 1____________________________Correction 1_____________________________ Rev. 2____________________________Correction 2_____________________________ Rev. 3____________________________Correction 3_____________________________ Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. NORTH SHEET NUMBER WM1.01 C 2018 Hitchcock Design Group Backup page 142 of 18810' Inlet 10' Inlet Raingarden See Sheet WM 1.03 Reference only, not in mitigation calculation Concrete Trail CAA - 5 CIL - 9 JNI - 4 LAU - 3 MGL - 3 POC -4 SYO - 4 15' Inlet 10' Inlet Vegetated Water Quality Pond See Sheet WM 1.03, Reference only, not in mitigation calculation T T 1 0 ' I n e t l PUMP ROOM PROVIDE FOUR (4) ROWS OF ALTERNATING SWITCH GRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM) AND EASTERN GAMAGRASS (TRIPSACUM DACTYLOIDES) Boardwalk CAA -5 CIL - 8 JNI - 6 LAU - 4 MGL - 2 POC -5 SYO - 5 POD - 5 TDI - 8 CEC - 6 LIB - 7 ELA - 50 JEF - 50 LCS - 50 LOC - 50 NLU - 50 POD - 6 TDI - 10 CEC - 7 LIB - 9 POD1 - 81 TDI1 - 81 CEC1 - 81 LIB1 - 82 AGW - 11 BMA - 14 LFC - 14 MTR - 10 QVI - 17 RHA - 10 UAM - 14 UIL - 28 Grass Bottom Detention Pond PROVIDE FOUR (4) ROWS OF ALTERNATING SWITCH GRASS (PANICUM VIRGATUM) AND EASTERN GAMAGRASS (TRIPSACUM DACTYLOIDES) POD1 - 81 TDI1 - 81 CEC1 - 81 LIB1 - 82 Concrete Trail 15' Inlet R 1601 Rio Grande Street Suite 450 Austin, Texas 78701 T 512.770.4503 hitchcockdesigngroup.com 07.16.2021 PROJECT 8020 Parmer/ SH130 NW 8020 East Parmer Lane Austin, Texas CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Pape Dawson 10800 North Mopac Expressway Building 3, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78759 LEGEND Mitigation Revegetation - High Water Use Tree & Shrub Mix - 0.18 acres Mitigation Revegetation - Moderate Water Use Tree & Shrub Mix - 0.07 acres Mitigation Revegetation - Light Water Use Tree & Shrub Mix - 0.17 acres Mitigation Revegetation - Aquatic Plant Mix - 0.12 acres Total Mitigation Revegetation Area: 0.54 acres g w d . t e S t i m r e P n o i t a g i t i M d n a l t e W \ t i m r e P 0 0 \ s c h p a r G 9 0 i \ e n a L r e m r a P l i - r a u d o M Z \ n g s e D G T S \ s t c e o r P j \ : S Non Mitigation Revegetation - Riparian Area - 1-gallon native woody saplings - 0.35 acres Non Mitigation Revegetation - Upland Species Seed Mix, Full Sun Area - 5.37 acres Non Mitigation Revegetation - Solid Sod - 5.20 acres COMPLETENESS CHECK JULY 16, 2021 REVISIONS No Date Issue CHECKED BY DTR DRAWN BY JTH SHEET TITLE Wetland Revegetation & Calculation SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50' Note: In the CEF mitigation and floodplain restoration area, the top 12 inches of topsoil shall be used onsite and reseeded with appropriate 604S.6, native grasses and forbs, and provide temporary irrigation in compliance with ECM P1. This is a condition of the environmental variances granted for the grading in the floodplain and fill greater than 4'. SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER__________________APPLICATION DATE_______________ SP-2021-XXXX JULY 16, 2021 APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON_______________UNDER SECTION_______ OF CHAPTER__________OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. 25-5 EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81,LDC)__________CASE MANAGER__________________ XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE (ORD.#970905-A)__________DWPZ______DDZ______ Know what's below. Call before you dig. WARNING: CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY PRESENCE AND EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. __________________________________________________________________________ 0' 25' 50' 150' Development Services Department RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE:_____________ZONING_____________ ETJ Rev. 1____________________________Correction 1_____________________________ Rev. 2____________________________Correction 2_____________________________ Rev. 3____________________________Correction 3_____________________________ Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. NORTH SHEET NUMBER WM1.02 C 2018 Hitchcock Design Group Backup page 143 of 18810' Inlet R T T 10' Inlet SGI 26 MAR 5 MCA 31 MLI 26 PVG 139 CLF 12 SGI 29 HMA 25 PVI 14 CLF 12 MCA 31 MLI 26 PVG 136 MAR 10 SMI 4 MAR 7 SGI 29 HMA 25 CCG 14 MAR 15 MCA 33 SMI 11 MLI 28 MAR 15 CCG 14 HMA 25 SGI 28 PLANT SCHEDULE WQP & RAINGARDEN SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER HEIGHT CLF CCG HMA MAR MCA MLI PVI SMI SFW SGI TLE CVI CVS CLA PVG Chasmanthium latifolium Northern Sea Oats Conoclinium greggii Gregg`s Mistflower Helianthus maximiliani Maximilian Sunflower Malvaviscus drummondii Turk`s Cap Muhlenbergia capillaris Gulf Muhly Muhlenbergia lindheimeri `Big` Big Muhly Physostegia virginiana Obedient Plant Sabal minor Dwarf Palmetto Salvia farinacea Mealy Sage Salvia greggii Autumn Sage Tagetes lemmonii Copper Canyon Daisy Callirhoe involucrata Purple Poppymallow Calyptocarpus vialis Horseherb Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Tickseed Panicum virgatum Switch Grass 5 gal 5 gal 5 Gal. 5 gal 3 Gal 5 gal 5 Gal. 5 gal 5 Gal. 5 gal 5 Gal. 1 gal 1 gal 1 gal 1 gal 10-12" QTY 24 28 75 52 181 158 44 15 170 142 84 12" o.c. 238 sf 12" o.c. 590 sf 18" o.c. 191 sf 15" o.c. 1,565 sf GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONTAINER SPACING VEGETATED WATER QUALITY POND 1 1" = 20'-0" RAINGARDEN PLANTING 2 1" = 20'-0" 1601 Rio Grande Street Suite 450 Austin, Texas 78701 T 512.770.4503 hitchcockdesigngroup.com 07.16.2021 PROJECT 8020 Parmer/ SH130 NW 8020 East Parmer Lane Austin, Texas CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Pape Dawson 10800 North Mopac Expressway Building 3, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78759 COMPLETENESS CHECK JULY 16, 2021 REVISIONS No Date Issue CHECKED BY DTR DRAWN BY JTH SHEET TITLE Pond & Raingarden Planting Plan SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50' SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER__________________APPLICATION DATE_______________ SP-2021-XXXX JULY 16, 2021 APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON_______________UNDER SECTION_______ OF CHAPTER__________OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. 25-5 EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81,LDC)__________CASE MANAGER__________________ XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE (ORD.#970905-A)__________DWPZ______DDZ______ Know what's below. Call before you dig. WARNING: CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY PRESENCE AND EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. __________________________________________________________________________ 0' 25' 50' 150' Development Services Department RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE:_____________ZONING_____________ ETJ Rev. 1____________________________Correction 1_____________________________ Rev. 2____________________________Correction 2_____________________________ Rev. 3____________________________Correction 3_____________________________ Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. NORTH SHEET NUMBER WM1.03 C 2018 Hitchcock Design Group PVG 268 MLI 39 TLE 42 CVS 307 SFW 85 PVG 271 MLI 39 TLE 42 CVS 307 SFW 85 PVG 230 SGI 30 MCA 34 PVI 30 CLA 89 CVI 247 MCA 52 g w d . t e S t i m r e P n o i t a g i t i M d n a l t e W \ t i m r e P 0 0 \ s c h p a r G 9 0 i \ e n a L r e m r a P l i - r a u d o M Z \ n g s e D G T S \ s t c e o r P j \ : S Backup page 144 of 188 EXHIBIT 13 – FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION SHEET Backup page 145 of 188Wetland 1: Area within site boundary: 2529 sf Area disturbed: 2529 sf Wetland 2: Area within site boundary: 314 sf Area disturbed: 202 sf 10' Inlet 10' Inlet Floodplain Modification Boundary Current CEF Setback Extended CEF Boundary Zone 2 Zone 1 Floodplain Modification Boundary Floodplain Modification Boundary Extended CEF Boundary Current CEF Setback 15' Inlet 10' Inlet 1 0 ' I n e t l PUMP ROOM T T Current CEF Setback Floodplain Modification Boundary Extended CEF Boundary l t e n I ' 5 1 Wetland 3: Area within site boundary: 299 sf Area disturbed: 0 sf Extended CEF Boundary Current CEF Setback Extended CEF Boundary 15' Inlet 15' Inlet 15' Inlet l t e n I ' 5 1 l t e n I ' 5 1 R 1601 Rio Grande Street Suite 450 Austin, Texas 78701 T 512.770.4503 hitchcockdesigngroup.com 07.16.2021 PROJECT 8020 Parmer/ SH130 NW 8020 East Parmer Lane Austin, Texas CONSULTANTS Civil Engineer Pape Dawson 10800 North Mopac Expressway Building 3, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78759 COMPLETENESS CHECK JULY 16, 2021 REVISIONS No Date Issue CHECKED BY DTR DRAWN BY JTH SHEET TITLE Floodplain Modification SCALE IN FEET 1" = 50' Note: In the CEF mitigation and floodplain restoration area, the top 12 inches of topsoil shall be used onsite and reseeded with appropriate 604S.6, native grasses and forbs, and provide temporary irrigation in compliance with ECM P1. This is a condition of the environmental variances granted for the grading in the floodplain and fill greater than 4'. SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER__________________APPLICATION DATE_______________ SP-2021-XXXX JULY 16, 2021 APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON_______________UNDER SECTION_______ OF CHAPTER__________OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. 25-5 EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81,LDC)__________CASE MANAGER__________________ XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE (ORD.#970905-A)__________DWPZ______DDZ______ Know what's below. Call before you dig. WARNING: CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY PRESENCE AND EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. __________________________________________________________________________ 0' 25' 50' 150' Development Services Department RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE:_____________ZONING_____________ ETJ Rev. 1____________________________Correction 1_____________________________ Rev. 2____________________________Correction 2_____________________________ Rev. 3____________________________Correction 3_____________________________ Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. NORTH SHEET NUMBER FM1.04 C 2018 Hitchcock Design Group g w d . t e S t i m r e P n o i t a g i t i M d n a l t e W \ t i m r e P 0 0 \ s c h p a r G 9 0 i \ e n a L r e m r a P l i - r a u d o M Z \ n g s e D G T S \ s t c e o r P j \ : S LEGEND CEF Current CEF Setback Extend CEF Boundary Floodplain Modification Boundary, Area: 2.69 ac Zone 1 (Floodplain outside the CWQZ) Zone 2 (Floodplain within the CWQZ) Backup page 146 of 188 EXHIBIT 14 – PRELIMINARY POND PLANS Backup page 147 of 188SEDIMENTATION/FILTRATION POND MAINTENANCE PLAN: WATER QUALITY POND SUMMARY: NOTES: B B A LEGEND A E T OF TEX A S S T A SHELLY MITCHELL 103662 P R L O F E S I C E N S SIONAL R E E D E NE N G I S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 10801 N MOPAC EXPY, BLDG 3, STE 200 I AUSTIN, TX 78759 I 512.454.8711 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T N A L P D N O P / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER C8J-2021-0141.0APA APPLICATION DATE ____AUGUST 20, 2021_______ APPROVED BY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION OF 112 CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81, LDC) CASE MANAGER XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE ORD. #970905-A) DWPZ DDZ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE: ZONING ETJ Rev. 1 Correction 1 Rev. 2 Correction 2 Rev. 3 Correction 3 Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. 16 of 21 C8J-2021-0141.0APA SHELLY MITCHELLPESGISIONALNE103662ROFEENRESTATOFSTEXALICENSED05/20/2022Backup page 148 of 188E T OF TEX A S S T A SHELLY MITCHELL 103662 P R L O F E S I C E N S SIONAL R E E D E NE N G I S A L L A D I H T R O W T R O F I N O T S U O H I O I N O T N A N A S I N I T S U A 10801 N MOPAC EXPY, BLDG 3, STE 200 I AUSTIN, TX 78759 I 512.454.8711 1 0 8 8 2 0 0 1 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F S L P B T I 0 7 4 # N O I T A R T S I G E R M R I F E P B T S L I A T E D D N O P / W N 0 3 1 H S R E M R A P 0 2 0 8 S A X E T , I N T S U A DETENTION POND 1 OUTFALL SITE PLAN RELEASE FILE NUMBER C8J-2021-0141.0APA APPLICATION DATE ____AUGUST 20, 2021_______ APPROVED BY COMMISSION UNDER SECTION OF 112 CHAPTER 25-5 OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE. EXPIRATION DATE (25-5-81, LDC) CASE MANAGER XXXX PROJECT EXPIRATION DATE ORD. #970905-A) DWPZ DDZ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT RELEASED FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE: ZONING ETJ Rev. 1 Correction 1 Rev. 2 Correction 2 Rev. 3 Correction 3 Final plat must be recorded by the Project Expiration Date, if applicable. Subsequent Site Plans Plans which do not comply with the Code current at the time of filing, and all required Building Permits and/or a notice of construction (if a building permit is not required), must also be approved prior to the Project Expiration Date. 17 of 21 C8J-2021-0141.0APA SECTION A-A SECTION B-B FILTRATION POND OUTLET SECTION 05/19/2022Backup page 149 of 188 EXHIBIT 15 – RIPARIAN ZONE MITIGATION FUND Q7 FORM Backup page 150 of 188 Appendix Q-7: Riparian Zone Mitigation Section 25-8-364 of the Land Development Code (Floodplain Modification) allows for mitigation where restoration of floodplain health is infeasible, in accordance with Section 1.7 of this manual. The mitigation requirement may be satisfied by: (1) Paying into the Water Supply Mitigation Fund (see Option 1 Worksheet); (2) Transferring mitigation land to the City of Austin or placing restrictions on mitigation land through a conservation easement (see Option 2 Worksheet); or (3) A combination of these mitigation methods (see Option 1 and Option 2 Worksheets). Section 25-8-261 of the Land Development Code (Critical Water Quality Zone Development) allows for payment into the Riparian Zone Mitigation Fund as mitigation for a utility line in urban and suburban watersheds located parallel to and within the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) if on-site restoration is infeasible, in accordance with Section 1.5 of this manual. If land is dedicated or restricted, it must be approved by the City and the applicant must file in the deed records a restrictive covenant, approved by the city attorney, that runs with the transferring tract and describes the restrictions on development and vegetation management. In addition, the applicant shall pay all costs of restricting the mitigation land or transferring the mitigation land to the City, including the costs of: (a) an environmental site assessment without any recommendations for further clean-up, certified to the City not earlier than the 120th day before the closing date transferring land to the City; (b) a category 1(a) land title survey, certified to the City and the title company not earlier than the 120th day before the closing date transferring land to the City; (c) a title commitment with copies of all Schedule B and C documents, and an owner's title policy; (d) a fee simple deed, or, for a restriction, a restrictive covenant approved as to form by the city attorney; (e) taxes prorated to the closing date; (f) recording fees; and charges or fees collected by the title company. The mitigation land must also have acceptable operating & maintenance (O&M) conditions, as approved by the proposed land manager. The presence of an outstanding environmental feature or attribute may allow the mitigation land to deviate slightly from the previous criteria where desirable and appropriate, pending approval from the Director of the Watershed Protection Department. If the applicant is placing restrictions on the mitigation land, the conservation easement must be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a development permit. Backup page 151 of 188OPTION 1 WORKSHEET CALCULATION FOR PAYMENT INTO THE RIPARIAN ZONE MITIGATION FUND A. OWNER/AGENT INFORMATION: Name: Company: Telephone: B. PROJECT INFORMATION: Name: Location or Address: Permit Number: Case Manager: C. MITIGATION REQUIRED Fax: Area Modified within the 100-Year Floodplain: (ac.) Area Disturbed by a Parallel Utility within the CWQZ: Ratio Applied (circle): The ratio for an area modified within the 100-Year Floodplain is determined by ECM 1.7.6. The ratio is 1:1 for a parallel utility within the CWQZ. Multiply the acres modified or disturbed by the ratio to determine the mitigation required. (ac.) 8:1 3:1 4:1 2:1 6:1 1:1 Mitigation Required: D. PAYMENT CALCULATION: Mitigation Land Provided by Applicant: Mitigation land provided by the applicant must be approved by the Director of the Watershed Protection Department and the Proposed Land Manager (Option 2 Worksheet). A project disturbing the CWQZ with a parallel utility does not have the option to provide mitigation land. Mitigation by Payment (ac.) = Mitigation Required - Mitigation Land Provided by Applicant (ac.) (ac.) Mitigation by Payment: Base Fee: Annual Adjustment Factor: Adjusted Fee: Total Fee: $15,000 per acre 7% beginning October 1, 2008 (ac.) $ Mitigation by Payment (ac.) x Adjusted Fee = $ Backup page 152 of 188Backup page 153 of 188 EXHIBIT 16 – FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH Backup page 154 of 188 ±14.34-Acre Parmer MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health July 28, 2021 Mr. Warren Hayes Z Modular 227 West Monroe Street., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Re: Dear Mr. Hayes, Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. conducted a functional assessment of floodplain health (functional assessment) for the ±14.34-acre Parmer MF project site located in Travis County, Texas. The purpose of the functional assessment is to assess the functional characteristics of the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ), the floodplain outside the CWQZ, and the active channel, in order to determine the health of the floodplain. Based on Pape-Dawson’s functional assessment, the area of proposed floodplain modification resulted in a Zone 2 score of fifteen, which is considered “fair” conditions for floodplain health by the City of Austin (COA). The transect used for the functional assessment was a representative transect, as the area of proposed floodplain modification had unpermitted work take place, thus altering the assessment process. The transect used to assess floodplain health was determined in coordination with the COA and their respective methodologies. The conclusions presented in this report represent the professional opinion of Pape-Dawson Engineers and are limited to the conditions observed at the project site at the time and date of the field investigation. If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (512) 454- 8711 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. Valerie Collins, AICP Associate Vice President H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_CoverLetter.docx Backup page 155 of 188 ±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health July 2021 Backup page 156 of 188 ±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health July 2021 Backup page 157 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 4 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 5 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Location Map Exhibit 2 – Site Map Exhibit 3 – Historical Aerial Photograph Map (2015) Exhibit 4 – Historical Aerial Photograph Map (2005) Exhibit 5 – Historical Aerial Photograph Map (1995) Exhibit 6 – Historical Topographic Map (1968) Exhibit 7 – Historical Topographic Map (1988) Exhibit 8 – Historical Topographic Map (2010) APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Photographs Appendix B – Scoring/Field Sheets H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx TOC - 1 Backup page 158 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health INTRODUCTION Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. was contracted to conduct a City of Austin (COA) Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health (Functional Assessment) according to Appendix X of the Environmental Criteria Manual, and as required by the Land Development Code (LDC) 25-8-261 and 25-8-364, for the approximately 14.34-acre Parmer MF project site in Travis County, Texas (Exhibit 1). The project site is located northwest of the intersection of East Parmer Lane and State Highway 130 in Austin, Texas The purpose of the functional assessment is to assess the functional characteristics of the Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ), the floodplain outside the CWQZ, and the active channel, in order to determine the (Exhibit 2). health of the floodplain. METHODS Desktop Review Prior to a site investigation, a desktop review was performed utilizing the following resources to evaluate the potential floodplain health of the project site. COA environmental data; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) historical and current topographic maps; Google Earth Pro readily available historical and readily available current aerial imagery A Zone 2 functional assessment was performed for the project site because the proposed floodplain modifications necessary for the project extend into the CWQZ of the project site. Currently, the proposed area of floodplain modification is on the southside of the project site, over an area where unpermitted work previously occurred. After coordination with the City of Austin, three transect segments and sample plots were developed that would appropriately represent a functional assessment for the area of proposed floodplain modification prior to any unpermitted work taking place. • • • 1 H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx Backup page 159 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health The transect segments were selected utilizing a combination of the resources discussed above and field investigation to determine that the area being assessed is analogous to the preexisting floodplain condition of the area of proposed floodplain modification. The transect segments and sample plots utilized for the functional assessment are shown in (Exhibit 2). A Pape-Dawson environmental scientist conducted the functional assessment for the project site on June 25, 2021 following the methodology outlined in Appendix X of the COA’s Environmental Criteria Manual. Because a traditional 100-meter transect would not be appropriate for assessing the site’s current conditions, three 33-meter transect segments were used instead, to assess analogous areas within the Aerial photography from 2015 (Exhibit 3) show the beginning of unpermitted work within the CWQZ, on the southside of the project site. It is unclear precisely what activity took place; however, it resulted in the south portion of the project site being cleared and paved. Prior to 2015, the area of proposed floodplain modification looked similar to the northern portion of the project site. Aerial photography from 2005 (Exhibit 4) and 1995 (Exhibit 5) show that the area of proposed floodplain modification appears to have been agricultural in nature. Historical topographic maps from 1968, 1988, and 2010 (Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8) show no major changes of elevation or topography within the project site. One change of note is that a small pond is depicted within a tributary feature in the 1968 topographic map, but this pond appears to grow in size by the 1988 topographic map, before becoming entirely isolated from the depicted tributary feature in the 2010 topographic map, according to USGS topographic data. The functional assessment was conducted on July 20, 2021 and resulted in a Zone 2 score of fifteen, which is considered a “fair” by the COA. The areas assessed chosen in areas representative of the conditions prior to the unpermitted work that occurred in 2015. The vegetation largely consisted of Bahia grass Field Methods project site. RESULTS 2 H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx Backup page 160 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health (Paspalum notatum), with small patches of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Giant cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea), Canada wildrye (Elymus candensis), Texas stork’s bill (Erodium texanum) and Engelmann daisy (Engelmannia peristenia) present throughout. Site Photographs are included in Appendix A. The field sheets and scoring for the functional assessment are included in Appendix B. DISCUSSION Based on Pape-Dawson’s functional assessment of floodplain health, the areas assessed were analogous to the area of proposed floodplain modification, would have resulted in a Zone 2 score of fifteen, which is considered “fair” conditions for floodplain health by the COA. Currently, the proposed floodplain modifications are partially to an area where unpermitted work occurred. After coordination with the City of Austin, three transect segments (each about 33 meters in length) were developed that would appropriately represent a functional assessment for the area of proposed floodplain modification prior to any unpermitted work taking place. The transect segments utilized were selected utilizing a combination of historical and current aerial imagery, historical and current topographic maps, and field investigation to determine that the areas being assessed, in lieu of the area where unpermitted work currently exists, are analogous to the preexisting floodplain condition. Specifically, using Google Earth Pro’s historical and present-day aerial imagery, it is noticeable that the area of proposed floodplain modification looked similar to the nearby representative transect segments, including the assessment area north of the creek. The area of proposed modification appears to have been maintained and agricultural in nature. Because of the similarity between the representative transect segments utilized on the project site and the area of proposed floodplain modification prior to the unpermitted work taking place, it is Pape-Dawson’s professional opinion that the functional assessment is representative of the pre-existing conditions of the area of proposed floodplain modification, and thus our results valid. 3 H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx Backup page 161 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health CONCLUSION Based on Pape-Dawson’s functional assessment of floodplain health, the area of proposed floodplain modification resulted in a Zone 2 score of fifteen, which is considered “fair” conditions for floodplain health by the COA. The three 33-meter transect segments used for the functional assessment were scored as a 100-meter representative transect, as the area of proposed floodplain modification had unpermitted work take place, thus altering the assessment process. The transect segments used to assess floodplain health were determined in coordination with the COA and their respective methodologies. The conclusions presented in this report represent the professional opinion of Pape-Dawson Engineers and are limited to the conditions observed at the project site at the time and date of the field investigation. 4 H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx Backup page 162 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health REFERENCES City of Austin (CoA). 2021. GIS Data. https://austintexas.gov/department/gis-data. City of Austin (CoA) Environmental Criteria Manual. 2021. Appendix X – Functional Assessment of City of Austin (CoA) Land Development Code (LDC). Floodplain Health. Section 25-8-261 Section 25-8-364 Google Earth Pro. 2021. Aerial Photography of the Project Site. 30.354798°, -97.592998°. Austin, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Manor, TX Quadrangle, 1:24,000. 7.5-Minute Series. United States Department of the Interior, USGS. - - H:\Projects\512\49\00\ENV\Parmer-MF_FunctionalAssessment\Draft\210715_ParmerMF_FunctionalAssessment.docx 5 Backup page 163 of 188 EXHIBITS Backup page 164 of 188 EXHIBIT 1 Location Map Backup page 165 of 188TRAVIS COUNTY i . y c n e g A e c v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h t r i O s a x e T , e b o G l i , l a t i g D G O C P A C , 1 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . I D E T O N E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D V O R P Y R E G A M I I I L A R E A d x m . 7 2 7 0 1 2 0 2 _ p a M n o i t a c o L _ 1 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o l i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e o r P j \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w H : r e s U M P 0 4 : 6 0 : 2 1 2 0 2 , 7 2 l u J : e t a D *City of Austin Data (2021) Project Site Project Site 150-Foot Buffer Creeks* Wetlands* Critical Environmental Feature Setback* Creek Setback* Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone* 0 4,000 2,000 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE Jul 2021 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 01 Parmer MF Functional Assessment LOCATION MAP ³ THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STORED AND/OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT'S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 166 of 188 EXHIBIT 2 Site Map Backup page 167 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ p a M e t i S _ 2 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 7 4 : 6 0 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D Transect Segment & Sample Plot #3 !( Transect Segment & Sample Plot #2 !( E P A R M E R L N E P A R M E R L N B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S B 0 S 3 H 1 N S Transect Segment & Sample Plot # 1 !( B 0 N 3 H 1 N S B D N R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S Project Site Critical Water Quality Zone Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 400 200 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet B D S R V 0 S 3 H 1 N S ³ 0 B 3 H 1 D S N S R V S JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED SHEET DRAWN VC JG EXHIBIT 02 Parmer MF Functional Assessment SITE MAP E PA R M E R LN R M E R LN E PA N SH 130 NB AT E MER TRN *Three 33-meter transect segments were used PAR in place of a standard 100-meter transect because 0 the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- B E P 3 H 1 D N meter linear representative area due to the N S R previously constructed unpermitted parking area. V S R LN E PA L R M E E A R R N M THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 168 of 188 EXHIBIT 3 2015 Historical Aerial Photograph Map Backup page 169 of 18822 3 33-meter Transect Segment* Proposed Grading Area Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet EXHIBIT 03 Project Site i r o t s H 5 1 0 2 _ 3 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G May 2022 51249-00 - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M !( d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ a DESIGNER s n k t a w h : r e s U FEET CHECKED JOB NO. V O R P Y R E G A M DRAWN SHEET 400 200 0 0 : 7 0 : 4 VC JG JG P y r e g a m o h DATE . y c n e g A e c r a F A D S U i r e A a c G O C P A C O s a x e T y r e g a m D E T O N v r e S m m a r g o r 2 2 0 2 y a M 2 2 0 2 © e b o G 0 D E D M P R E A a D I L A 0 2 g D : o r H P I . F : , e e \ : t r l i a , t i l , I t \ i j l i l l I I I , , i l i i !( 1 !( ³ !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. Parmer MF Functional Assessment Historical Aerial Photograph (2015) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. Backup page 170 of 188 EXHIBIT 4 2005 Historical Aerial Photograph Map Backup page 171 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 7 2 7 0 1 2 0 2 _ a l i r e A a c l i i r o t s H 5 0 0 2 _ 4 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 7 4 : 1 1 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D 3 !( 2 !( 1 !( Project Site Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 400 200 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 04 Parmer MF Functional Assessment Historical Aerial Photograph (2005) *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 172 of 188 EXHIBIT 5 1995 Historical Aerial Photograph Map Backup page 173 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ a l i r e A a c l i i r o t s H 5 9 9 1 _ 5 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 5 2 : 2 2 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D 3 !( 2 !( 1 !( Project Site Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 400 200 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 05 Parmer MF Functional Assessment Historical Aerial Photograph (1995) *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 Backup page 174 of 188 EXHIBIT 6 1968 Historical Topographic Map Backup page 175 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ p a M o p o T 8 6 9 1 _ 6 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 9 4 : 1 2 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D 3 !( 2 !( !( 1 Project Site Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 1,000 500 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 06 Parmer MF Functional Assessment HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1968) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. Backup page 176 of 188 EXHIBIT 7 1988 Historical Topographic Map Backup page 177 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ p a M o p o T 8 8 9 1 _ 7 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 6 1 : 1 2 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D 3 !( 2 !( !( 1 Project Site Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 1,000 500 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 07 Parmer MF Functional Assessment HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1988) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. Backup page 178 of 188 EXHIBIT 8 2010 Historical Topographic Map Backup page 179 of 188. y c n e g A e c i v r e S m r a F A D S U , m a r g o r P y r e g a m o h i t r O s a x e T , e b o G l l a t i i g D , G O C P A C , 2 2 0 2 © y r e g a m I . D E T O N I E S W R E H T O S S E L N U © E L G O O G Y B D E D I V O R P Y R E G A M I L A I R E A d x m . 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 2 _ p a M o p o T 0 1 0 2 _ 8 0 X E _ 0 0 - 9 4 2 1 5 \ S G I l \ t n e m s s e s s A a n o i t c n u F _ F M \ - r e m r a P V N E \ 0 0 \ 9 4 \ 2 1 5 \ s t c e j o r P \ : H : e l i F i s n k t a w h : r e s U M P 3 0 : 1 2 : 4 2 2 0 2 , 0 2 y a M : e t a D 3 !( 2 !( !( 1 Project Site Proposed Grading Area !( 100-square-meter Sample Plot Location 33-meter Transect Segment* 0 1,000 500 FEET Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Texas Central FIPS 4203 Feet ³ *Three 33-meter transect segments were used in place of a standard 100-meter transect because the project site did not contain an appropriate 100- meter linear representative area due to the previously constructed unpermitted parking area. JOB NO. 51249-00 DATE May 2022 DESIGNER JG CHECKED VC DRAWN JG SHEET EXHIBIT 08 Parmer MF Functional Assessment HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (2010) SAN ANTONIO AUSTIN HOUSTON FORT WORTH DALLAS 2000 NW LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78213 210.375.9000 TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION #470 TBPLS FIRM REGISTRATION #10028800 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO DUCED FROM MATERIAL THAT WAS STO RED AND/OR TRANSMITT ED ELECTRONICALLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY ALTERED. RELY ONLY ON FINAL HARDCOPY MATERIALS BEARING THE CONSULTANT 'S ORIGINAL SIGNAT URE AND SEAL. Backup page 180 of 188 APPENDICES Backup page 181 of 188 APPENDIX A Site Photographs Backup page 182 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 1 Description: View of the paved portion of the project site facing southeast, on the southeastern corner of the project site. Date: 03-30-2021 Photo No. 2 Description: A typical view of upland habitat that bordered the paved parking lot, on the southeastern portion of the project site. The habitat was a largely mixture of disturbed herbaceous vegetation. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 183 of 188±14.34-ACRE PARMER MF Functional Assessment of Floodplain Health Date: 07-20-2021 Photo No. 3 Description: A view of the vegetation found on either side of the creek with the unpermitted parking lot visible in the background. Date: 07-20-2021 Photo No. 4 Description: A view the vegetation present from the northern representative transect segment, facing south, towards the creek. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Backup page 184 of 188 APPENDIX B Scoring/Field Sheets Backup page 185 of 188Backup page 186 of 188Backup page 187 of 188Backup page 188 of 188