draft supplemental environmental assessment city of el ......dec 26, 2017  · flooding along tres...

38
Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El Campo Tres Palacios Creek Drainage Improvement Project SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008 Wharton County, Texas December 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security Region 6 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209

Upload: others

Post on 23-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment

City of El Campo Tres Palacios Creek Drainage Improvement Project SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008 Wharton County Texas December 2017

Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security Region 6 800 North Loop 288 Denton TX 76209

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 INTRODUCTION5

20 PURPOSE AND NEED 6

21 Purpose 6

22 Need 6

30 ALTERNATIVES 6

31

32 Proposed Action Alternative 7

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 7

No-Action Alternative 7

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 8

41 Physical Resources8

411 Geology and Soils 8

412 Air Quality 10

42 Water Resources 11

421 Groundwater 11

422 Floodplains11

423 Water Quality 16

43 Biological Resources 17

431

432 Protected Species 18

Wildlife Habitat 17

44 Cultural Resources25

45 Socioeconomic Resources 26

451 Environmental Justice 26

452 Hazardous Materials 29

453 Noise31

454 Transportation31

455 Public Health and Safety 32

46 Environmental Summary Table 32

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 35

60 AGENCY COORDINATION 35

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 36

80 LIST OF PREPARERS 36

90 REFERENCES CITED37

ii

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Figure 1 Location Map

Figure 2 Vicinity Map

Figure 3 Study Area Map

Figure 4 Soils Map

Figure 5 FEMA Floodplain Map

Figure 6 Waters of the US Map

Figure 7 US Census Bureau Census Tract and Block Group Map

Figure 8 Oil and Gas Facilities Map

Appendix B Construction Plans

Appendix C Form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type

Projects

Appendix D Waters of the United States Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report

and USACE Coordination

Appendix E Cultural Resource Survey Report and THC Coordination

Appendix F GeoSearch Radius Report and Oil and Gas Report

Appendix G Public Notice

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

BMP Best Management Practice BUS US Route Business

iii

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ES Ephemeral Stream EW Emergent Wetland FCU Functional Credit Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HHS US Department of Health and Human Services IHWCA Industrial Hazardous Waste Corrective Action LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCN Preconstruction Notification PST Petroleum Storage Tank SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SSW ScrubShrub Wetland SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCEQ Texas Commission of Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department US US Route USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

iv

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

10 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011 the City of El Campo received a project grant from the Texas Water Development Board administered under the Federal Emergency Management Administrationrsquos (FEMA) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008) The grant would be used to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo The 2012 project included benched channel improvements along the creek from US Route 59 Business (BUS 59) to Country Road (CR) 406 a distance of 27 miles which would have reduced the elevation of floodwaters through the City of El Campo In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR 10) the City of El Campo prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2012 for the project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on November 15 2012 However after further engineering analysis it was determined that by only improving the efficiency of the creek channel within the City of El Campo the 2012 project would increase floodwater discharges downstream and result in potential adverse impacts to properties outside of the City in Wharton and Matagorda Counties To mitigate these potential downstream impacts the 2012 project was modified in 2016 to relocate a majority of the proposed improvements beyond the city limits of El Campo and into Wharton County The proposed 2016 project would eliminate the proposed 2012 improvements from BUS 59 to US Route 59 (US 59) and instead include benched channel improvements from US 59 to approximately 1 mile downstream of CR 406 a distance of 19 miles In addition the 2016 project would include construction of a 46-acre off-channel detention pond to remove the natural constriction of Tres Palacios Creek between CR 406 and CR 408 to reduce both the tail water depths south of the City and potential downstream discharges impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties Differences between the 2012 project and 2016 project are identified in Table 1 and depicted in Appendix A Figure 2 No improvements associated with the 2012 project have been constructed The geographic coordinates of the 2016 project extend from -9625438 2918058 (northern extent at US 59) to -9624303 2916189 (southern extent) (see Appendix A Figures 1 through 3)

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

2012 Project 2016 Project

Limits BUS 59 to CR 406 US 59 to Approximately 1 mile

Downstream of CR 406

Length 27 miles 19 miles

Improvements Benched Channel Improvements Benched Channel Improvements and

Off-Channel Detention Pond

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 5

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 2: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 INTRODUCTION5

20 PURPOSE AND NEED 6

21 Purpose 6

22 Need 6

30 ALTERNATIVES 6

31

32 Proposed Action Alternative 7

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 7

No-Action Alternative 7

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 8

41 Physical Resources8

411 Geology and Soils 8

412 Air Quality 10

42 Water Resources 11

421 Groundwater 11

422 Floodplains11

423 Water Quality 16

43 Biological Resources 17

431

432 Protected Species 18

Wildlife Habitat 17

44 Cultural Resources25

45 Socioeconomic Resources 26

451 Environmental Justice 26

452 Hazardous Materials 29

453 Noise31

454 Transportation31

455 Public Health and Safety 32

46 Environmental Summary Table 32

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 35

60 AGENCY COORDINATION 35

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 36

80 LIST OF PREPARERS 36

90 REFERENCES CITED37

ii

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Figure 1 Location Map

Figure 2 Vicinity Map

Figure 3 Study Area Map

Figure 4 Soils Map

Figure 5 FEMA Floodplain Map

Figure 6 Waters of the US Map

Figure 7 US Census Bureau Census Tract and Block Group Map

Figure 8 Oil and Gas Facilities Map

Appendix B Construction Plans

Appendix C Form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type

Projects

Appendix D Waters of the United States Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report

and USACE Coordination

Appendix E Cultural Resource Survey Report and THC Coordination

Appendix F GeoSearch Radius Report and Oil and Gas Report

Appendix G Public Notice

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

BMP Best Management Practice BUS US Route Business

iii

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ES Ephemeral Stream EW Emergent Wetland FCU Functional Credit Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HHS US Department of Health and Human Services IHWCA Industrial Hazardous Waste Corrective Action LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCN Preconstruction Notification PST Petroleum Storage Tank SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SSW ScrubShrub Wetland SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCEQ Texas Commission of Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department US US Route USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

iv

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

10 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011 the City of El Campo received a project grant from the Texas Water Development Board administered under the Federal Emergency Management Administrationrsquos (FEMA) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008) The grant would be used to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo The 2012 project included benched channel improvements along the creek from US Route 59 Business (BUS 59) to Country Road (CR) 406 a distance of 27 miles which would have reduced the elevation of floodwaters through the City of El Campo In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR 10) the City of El Campo prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2012 for the project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on November 15 2012 However after further engineering analysis it was determined that by only improving the efficiency of the creek channel within the City of El Campo the 2012 project would increase floodwater discharges downstream and result in potential adverse impacts to properties outside of the City in Wharton and Matagorda Counties To mitigate these potential downstream impacts the 2012 project was modified in 2016 to relocate a majority of the proposed improvements beyond the city limits of El Campo and into Wharton County The proposed 2016 project would eliminate the proposed 2012 improvements from BUS 59 to US Route 59 (US 59) and instead include benched channel improvements from US 59 to approximately 1 mile downstream of CR 406 a distance of 19 miles In addition the 2016 project would include construction of a 46-acre off-channel detention pond to remove the natural constriction of Tres Palacios Creek between CR 406 and CR 408 to reduce both the tail water depths south of the City and potential downstream discharges impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties Differences between the 2012 project and 2016 project are identified in Table 1 and depicted in Appendix A Figure 2 No improvements associated with the 2012 project have been constructed The geographic coordinates of the 2016 project extend from -9625438 2918058 (northern extent at US 59) to -9624303 2916189 (southern extent) (see Appendix A Figures 1 through 3)

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

2012 Project 2016 Project

Limits BUS 59 to CR 406 US 59 to Approximately 1 mile

Downstream of CR 406

Length 27 miles 19 miles

Improvements Benched Channel Improvements Benched Channel Improvements and

Off-Channel Detention Pond

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 5

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 3: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Figure 1 Location Map

Figure 2 Vicinity Map

Figure 3 Study Area Map

Figure 4 Soils Map

Figure 5 FEMA Floodplain Map

Figure 6 Waters of the US Map

Figure 7 US Census Bureau Census Tract and Block Group Map

Figure 8 Oil and Gas Facilities Map

Appendix B Construction Plans

Appendix C Form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type

Projects

Appendix D Waters of the United States Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination Report

and USACE Coordination

Appendix E Cultural Resource Survey Report and THC Coordination

Appendix F GeoSearch Radius Report and Oil and Gas Report

Appendix G Public Notice

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

BMP Best Management Practice BUS US Route Business

iii

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ES Ephemeral Stream EW Emergent Wetland FCU Functional Credit Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HHS US Department of Health and Human Services IHWCA Industrial Hazardous Waste Corrective Action LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCN Preconstruction Notification PST Petroleum Storage Tank SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SSW ScrubShrub Wetland SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCEQ Texas Commission of Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department US US Route USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

iv

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

10 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011 the City of El Campo received a project grant from the Texas Water Development Board administered under the Federal Emergency Management Administrationrsquos (FEMA) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008) The grant would be used to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo The 2012 project included benched channel improvements along the creek from US Route 59 Business (BUS 59) to Country Road (CR) 406 a distance of 27 miles which would have reduced the elevation of floodwaters through the City of El Campo In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR 10) the City of El Campo prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2012 for the project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on November 15 2012 However after further engineering analysis it was determined that by only improving the efficiency of the creek channel within the City of El Campo the 2012 project would increase floodwater discharges downstream and result in potential adverse impacts to properties outside of the City in Wharton and Matagorda Counties To mitigate these potential downstream impacts the 2012 project was modified in 2016 to relocate a majority of the proposed improvements beyond the city limits of El Campo and into Wharton County The proposed 2016 project would eliminate the proposed 2012 improvements from BUS 59 to US Route 59 (US 59) and instead include benched channel improvements from US 59 to approximately 1 mile downstream of CR 406 a distance of 19 miles In addition the 2016 project would include construction of a 46-acre off-channel detention pond to remove the natural constriction of Tres Palacios Creek between CR 406 and CR 408 to reduce both the tail water depths south of the City and potential downstream discharges impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties Differences between the 2012 project and 2016 project are identified in Table 1 and depicted in Appendix A Figure 2 No improvements associated with the 2012 project have been constructed The geographic coordinates of the 2016 project extend from -9625438 2918058 (northern extent at US 59) to -9624303 2916189 (southern extent) (see Appendix A Figures 1 through 3)

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

2012 Project 2016 Project

Limits BUS 59 to CR 406 US 59 to Approximately 1 mile

Downstream of CR 406

Length 27 miles 19 miles

Improvements Benched Channel Improvements Benched Channel Improvements and

Off-Channel Detention Pond

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 5

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 4: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ES Ephemeral Stream EW Emergent Wetland FCU Functional Credit Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HHS US Department of Health and Human Services IHWCA Industrial Hazardous Waste Corrective Action LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCN Preconstruction Notification PST Petroleum Storage Tank SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SSW ScrubShrub Wetland SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TCEQ Texas Commission of Environmental Quality THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department US US Route USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

iv

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

10 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011 the City of El Campo received a project grant from the Texas Water Development Board administered under the Federal Emergency Management Administrationrsquos (FEMA) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008) The grant would be used to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo The 2012 project included benched channel improvements along the creek from US Route 59 Business (BUS 59) to Country Road (CR) 406 a distance of 27 miles which would have reduced the elevation of floodwaters through the City of El Campo In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR 10) the City of El Campo prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2012 for the project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on November 15 2012 However after further engineering analysis it was determined that by only improving the efficiency of the creek channel within the City of El Campo the 2012 project would increase floodwater discharges downstream and result in potential adverse impacts to properties outside of the City in Wharton and Matagorda Counties To mitigate these potential downstream impacts the 2012 project was modified in 2016 to relocate a majority of the proposed improvements beyond the city limits of El Campo and into Wharton County The proposed 2016 project would eliminate the proposed 2012 improvements from BUS 59 to US Route 59 (US 59) and instead include benched channel improvements from US 59 to approximately 1 mile downstream of CR 406 a distance of 19 miles In addition the 2016 project would include construction of a 46-acre off-channel detention pond to remove the natural constriction of Tres Palacios Creek between CR 406 and CR 408 to reduce both the tail water depths south of the City and potential downstream discharges impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties Differences between the 2012 project and 2016 project are identified in Table 1 and depicted in Appendix A Figure 2 No improvements associated with the 2012 project have been constructed The geographic coordinates of the 2016 project extend from -9625438 2918058 (northern extent at US 59) to -9624303 2916189 (southern extent) (see Appendix A Figures 1 through 3)

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

2012 Project 2016 Project

Limits BUS 59 to CR 406 US 59 to Approximately 1 mile

Downstream of CR 406

Length 27 miles 19 miles

Improvements Benched Channel Improvements Benched Channel Improvements and

Off-Channel Detention Pond

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 5

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 5: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

10 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011 the City of El Campo received a project grant from the Texas Water Development Board administered under the Federal Emergency Management Administrationrsquos (FEMA) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL-PJ-06-TX-2011-008) The grant would be used to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo The 2012 project included benched channel improvements along the creek from US Route 59 Business (BUS 59) to Country Road (CR) 406 a distance of 27 miles which would have reduced the elevation of floodwaters through the City of El Campo In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR 10) the City of El Campo prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) dated October 2012 for the project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on November 15 2012 However after further engineering analysis it was determined that by only improving the efficiency of the creek channel within the City of El Campo the 2012 project would increase floodwater discharges downstream and result in potential adverse impacts to properties outside of the City in Wharton and Matagorda Counties To mitigate these potential downstream impacts the 2012 project was modified in 2016 to relocate a majority of the proposed improvements beyond the city limits of El Campo and into Wharton County The proposed 2016 project would eliminate the proposed 2012 improvements from BUS 59 to US Route 59 (US 59) and instead include benched channel improvements from US 59 to approximately 1 mile downstream of CR 406 a distance of 19 miles In addition the 2016 project would include construction of a 46-acre off-channel detention pond to remove the natural constriction of Tres Palacios Creek between CR 406 and CR 408 to reduce both the tail water depths south of the City and potential downstream discharges impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties Differences between the 2012 project and 2016 project are identified in Table 1 and depicted in Appendix A Figure 2 No improvements associated with the 2012 project have been constructed The geographic coordinates of the 2016 project extend from -9625438 2918058 (northern extent at US 59) to -9624303 2916189 (southern extent) (see Appendix A Figures 1 through 3)

Table 1 2012 Project Compared to 2016 Project

2012 Project 2016 Project

Limits BUS 59 to CR 406 US 59 to Approximately 1 mile

Downstream of CR 406

Length 27 miles 19 miles

Improvements Benched Channel Improvements Benched Channel Improvements and

Off-Channel Detention Pond

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 5

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 6: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

This Supplemental EA has been prepared to analyze the effects of the proposed 2016 project Where appropriate data and analysis conducted for the 2012 EAFONSI has been referenced The analysis and findings of the 2012 EAFONSI have been incorporated in this Supplemental EA unless otherwise noted This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA the Presidentrsquos Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FEMArsquos revised procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1) FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects The purpose of this Supplemental EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2016 project FEMA will use the findings in this Supplemental EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or FONSI

20 PURPOSE AND NEED

There is no change to the Purpose and Need as identified in the 2012 EAFONSI The design changes for the 2016 project identified in this Supplemental EA support the original Purpose and Need 21 Purpose

As described in the 2012 EAFONSI the purpose of the 2012 project is to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek in the City of El Campo by increasing the flood storage capacity of the creek to reduce recurring property damage that occurs as a result of repetitive flood events Through the Severe Repetitive Loss Program FEMA provides grants to qualifying states and local governments for the purposes of implementing long-term flood hazard mitigation measures The program is authorized under Section 1361A of the National Flood Insurance Program for the purpose of reducing flood damage to residential properties experiencing severe repetitive losses which would result in beneficial cost savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund 22 Need

Tres Palacios Creek has been a source of frequent flooding in the City of El Campo and Wharton County over the last 30 years Flood hazards along the creek include inadequate stream channel capacity and stream channel restrictions caused by siltation Historic flood events within the City of El Campo are listed in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition All Hazards Mitigation Plan including flood events in 1990 1991 1994 1998 2002 and 2004 which all received Presidential Disaster Declarations As a result of the Thanksgiving Day flood in 2004 approximately 500 homes were damaged

30 ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated in the 2012 EAFONSI the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative (eg the 2012 project) For this Supplemental EA the No-Action Alternative remains unchanged However the Proposed Action Alternative in this Supplemental

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 6

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 7: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

EA represents the 2016 project including the design changes to mitigate potential downstream impacts of Tres Palacios Creek in Wharton and Matagorda Counties outside of the City of El Campo 31 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Existing residential and commercial properties along the creek would remain at risk to frequent flood events impacting the limited emergency and recovery management resources of the City of El Campo and Wharton County and continuing to stretch the monetary resources of the National Flood Insurance Fund This alternative is carried forward for analysis as a comparison against the Proposed Action Alternative 32 Proposed Action Alternative

Under the Proposed Action Alternative (2016 project) structural improvements within the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain would occur to increase the 50-year flood capacity of the creek by reducing the elevation of the 100-year base floodplain by approximately 1 foot The earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek from US 59 to CR 406 would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 60 feet with 41 side slopes The earthen channel from CR 406 to the proposed off-channel detention pond would be widened to a bottom width of approximately 35 to 40 feet with 31 side slopes An off-channel detention pond with a maximum depth of 13 feet and encompassing approximately 46 acres would be constructed approximately 1 mile south of CR 406 The detention pond would accommodate the existing flow of Tres Palacios Creek under current conditions but hold flood waters channeled downstream along the proposed improvements before slowly releasing the excess water back into creek Current construction plans for the 2016 project are included in Appendix B No improvements associated with the previous 2012 project have been constructed or would be constructed as part of the Proposed Action Alternative

33 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Additional alternatives considered and dismissed for the 2012 project are discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI For the 2016 project one additional alternative was considered and dismissed

Levee Option Improvements associated with the Levee Option included modification of the Tres Palacios Creek channel from BUS 59 to 1 mile downstream of CR 406 construction of a 46-acre detention pond between CR 406 and CR 408 and levee construction along both sides of the creek from BUS 59 to Mechanic Street in El Campo The Levee Option would have conveyed the 100-year flood within the creek channel and eliminated the overland floodplain within the City of El Campo However disadvantages of the Levee Option included increased flood elevations downstream and impacts to at least four roadway crossings including the acquisition of additional right-of-way

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 7

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 8: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Due to potential downstream adverse effects impacting Wharton and Matagorda Counties the Levee Option was dismissed from further consideration

40 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Existing environmental conditions within the 2016 project area are detailed below along with a description of potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative For this analysis impacts are defined as follows

No Impact Impacts which are negligible or not measurable

Adverse Impact Impacts that would result in measureable differences or are perceptible 41 Physical Resources

411 Geology and Soils

The 2016 project area overlays the Beaumont Formation which consists of clays silts and sands deposited as meanderbelt floodbasin crevasse splay levee deltaic barrier bar and lagoon facies Weathering produces rich dark soils crossed by meandering low sand ridges (Solis 1981) Table 2 identifies the existing soil units within the 2016 project area and are depicted in Appendix A Figure 4

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 8

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 9: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 2 Soil Units within the 2016 Project Area

Soil Unit Slope Natural

Drainage Class

Runoff Class

Capacity to Transmit Water

Available Water Storage

Acres in 2016 Project Area

Percent of 2016 Project Area

BcA ndash Dacosta sandy clay loam

0 to 1 percent

Moderately well drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

Moderate 60 58

BeA ndash Bernard-Edna complex

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

High (Bernard) to low (Edna)

76 73

EdA ndash Edna loam 0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

High Very low to moderately low

Low 219 212

Md ndash Bernard loam

0 to 1 percent

Somewhat poorly drained

-- Very low to moderately low

High 16 155

SnkA ndash Snakecreek fine sandy loam

0 to 1 percent

frequently flooded

Somewhat poorly drained

Medium Very low to moderately low

High 181 175

W ndash Water -- -- -- -- -- 337 326

TOTAL 1033 100

Source NRCS 2017

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 9

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 10: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No Action Alternative No construction activities disturbing the existing geology or soil units would occur Therefore no impacts to geology or soils would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include earth grading and excavation which would impact existing soil units within the 2016 project area Approximately 1010150 cubic yards of earth would be excavated for the 2016 project Excavation activities for the proposed 46-acre off-channel detention pond would not exceed 13 feet which would not impact the underlying geology The 2016 project area is located outside of the El Campo Urbanized Area as defined by the US Census Bureau (2011b) Therefore the 2016 project is subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) Approximately 46 acres of existing farmland would be converted to a non-agricultural use for the proposed detention pond In accordance with the FPPA the Natural Resources Conservation Servicersquos (NRCS) form NRCS-CPA-106 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects was completed for the 2016 project Total corridor Assessment Points for the 2016 project totaled 40 points which is less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required A copy of form NRCS-CPA-106 is included in Appendix C No adverse soil impacts as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 412 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act as amended requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment The NAAQS define the allowable concentrations of air pollutants which may not be exceeded during a given period of time and include both primary and secondary standards Primary standards provide public health protection including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics children and the elderly Secondary standards provide public welfare protection including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals crops vegetation and buildings The EPA has set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) sulfur dioxide (SO2) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 25 micrometers (PM25) and lead (Pb) In the 2012 EAFONSI Wharton County was identified as an area designated by the EPA to be in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS A subsequent review of the NAAQS for this Supplemental EA identified no change in the EPArsquos designation for Wharton County (EPA 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities would occur As a result there would be no potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and airborne dust particles as a result of construction activities Therefore no impacts to air quality conditions would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 10

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 11: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities to widen the earthen channel of Tres Palacios Creek and construct the proposed detention pond would utilize heavy equipment and machinery During construction there is the potential for short-term localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles to occur Typical industry standard best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of water spraying to suppress airborne dust particles as necessary in disturbed areas Additional industry standard BMPs include properly maintaining construction equipment and limiting their idling times to reduce vehicle emissions Therefore no construction-related impacts are associated with the Proposed Action Alternative Long-term air quality impacts are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative because it is a flood mitigation effort

42 Water Resources

421 Groundwater

The 2016 project is located within the Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District and groundwater resources within the 2016 project area are associated with the Chicot unit of the Gulf Coast aquifer The Chicot aquifer consists mainly of discontinuous layers of sand and clay of about equal thickness including the Willis Sand the Bentley and Montgomery formations the Beaumont Clay and alluvial deposits at the surface and is the main source of groundwater in Wharton Colorado and Lavaca Counties (Mace et al 2006) The Chicot aquifer ranges in thickness from 0 feet at its outcroppings to approximately 1200 feet in southern Wharton County Groundwater level within the Chicot aquifer ranges from approximately 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface (TWDB 2017) No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to impact existing groundwater resources would occur Therefore no impacts to groundwater would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities include excavation along the Tres Palacios Creek channel and at the proposed detention basins The deepest excavations would occur at the detention basins which would not exceed 13 feet in depth Groundwater levels range from 52 feet to 71 feet below the surface Therefore no short-term impacts to groundwater resources would occur as a result of construction activities for the Proposed Action Alternative and long-term impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated

422 Floodplains

Approximately 85 acres of the 2016 project area is located within the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year floodplain Both the City of El Campo and Wharton County are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program No-Action Alternative No construction activities within the 100-year floodplain would occur Therefore no impacts to the current base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 11

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 12: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Step 4 Identify Impacts of the Proposed Action

Step 3 Identify and Evaluate Alternatives to Locating in the Base Floodplain

Step 2 Early Public Review

Step 1 Determine if the Proposed Action is Located in the Base Floodplain

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain by approximately 1 foot In accordance with 44 CFR 96 and Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) the eight-step decision making process has been applied to the proposed project and is summarized below

Based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) Panel Numbers 48481C0520E and 48481C0550E (Effective Date April 5 2006) the 2016 project area encompasses approximately 85 acres of the Tres Palacios Creek 100-year base floodplain (1 percent annual chance flood hazard) including approximately 45 acres of the floodway (see Appendix A Figure 5)

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EA was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public meetings have been conducted since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 For the 2016 project public review would be afforded through the Notice of Availability published for the Draft Supplemental EA

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate flooding and reduce property damage resulting from repetitive flood events occurring along Tres Palacios Creek As discussed in the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA alternatives included both non-structural and structural alternatives Non-structural alternatives included the buyout andor raising of affected structures in the City of El Campo However the non-structural alternatives would not mitigate the adverse flood impacts occurring downstream in Wharton and Matagorda Counties Structural alternatives consisted of engineered modifications to the base floodplain to increase the flood storage capacity Tres Palacios Creek Between the non-structural and structural alternatives only the structural alternatives occurring within the base floodplain would satisfy the purpose and need

In accordance with 44 CFR 910 FEMA must identify the potential impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action including whether the proposed action will result in an increase in the useful life of any structure or facility in question maintain the

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 12

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 13: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Step 6 Reevaluate Alternatives

Step 5 Minimize Harm and Restore and Preserve Natural and Beneficial Values

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

investment at risk and exposure of lives to the flood hazard or forego an opportunity to restore the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains or wetlands Specifically FEMA must consider and evaluate

Impacts associated with the modification of floodplains and wetlands

Additional impacts of subsequent actions which may occur as a result of the proposed action and

Adverse impacts of the proposed action on lives property and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains and wetlands

Additionally FEMA must consider and evaluate the impacts of the proposed action with respect to the following factors

Flood hazard-related factors

Natural values-related factors and

Factors relevant to the proposed actionrsquos effects on the survival and quality of wetlands To satisfy the requirements of 44 CFR 910 the 2012 EAFONSI and this Supplemental EA have been prepared to identify and evaluate potential impacts to environmental cultural and human resources occurring as a result of the proposed project The findings of the 2012 EAFONSI and Supplemental EA would be used to determine whether the preparation of an EIS would be required for the 2016 project or to prepare a FONSI

In compliance with 44 CFR 911 the proposed action has been designed to minimize impacts to the Tres Palacios Creek floodplain and associated wetlands and to enhance the beneficial values of the floodplain and wetlands There would be no new encroachments within the regulatory floodway that would increase flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge The proposed action would minimize threats to life and property by increasing the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek and reducing the elevation of the base floodplain by approximately 1 foot Impacts to existing natural resources have been minimized to the extent practicable Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated by the purchase of functional credit units (FCUs) from the Danza Del Rio Mitigation Bank No adverse impacts to cultural or human resources are anticipated Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and all required permits would be acquired prior to initiating work All coordination pertaining to these activities and compliance with any additional conditions would be documented and copies provided to FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file Anticipated impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed action are summarized in Table 9

The purpose of the 2016 project is to mitigate damage occurring as a result of repetitive flood events along Tres Palacios Creek An assessment of the No-Action Alternative and Proposed

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 13

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 14: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Surface Waters

Step 8 Implement Proposed Action in Compliance with Minimization Plans and Flood Insurance Requirements

Step 7 Findings and Public Explanation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Action Alternative has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as effectively addressing the purpose of the 2016 project with negligible adverse impacts

In accordance with 44 CFR 912 the City of El Campo must prepare and provide a final public notice 15 days prior to the start of construction activities The final public notice must provide the public with an explanation of the final decision that the floodplain is the only practicable alternative

The 2016 project would be implemented in accordance with applicable requirements regarding development within a floodplain To ensure compliance the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 2016 project would be reviewed by the local floodplain administrator No adverse impacts to the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 423 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) In addition Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands on federal property Under Section 404 of the CWA a USACE permit is required for any activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States including wetlands

A field investigation of the 2016 project area was conducted in March 2016 when conditions were damp as moderate rain was experienced in the week prior to the field visit One perennial stream (Tres Palacios Creek) and two ephemeral stream segments (ES-1 and ES-2) were identified within the 2016 project area ES-1 drains a remnant oxbow of Tres Palacios Creek and has a poorly defined bed and bank ES-2 has steeply cut banks that gradually taper at its confluence with Tres Palacios Creek Table 3 provides a summary of all field-mapped stream segments within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped stream segments are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 14

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 15: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 3 Stream Segments within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Stream Classification Length (Feet)

Width (Feet)

Area (Acres)

Tres Palacios Creek Perennial 9850 15 ndash 20 452

ES-1 Ephemeral 160 2 001

ES-2 Ephemeral 150 2 001

ES ndash Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet

A review of the US Fish and Wildlife Servicersquos (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicated that there are four NWI-mapped features within the 2016 project area The March 2016 field investigation identified multiple wetlands in the vicinity of NWI-depicted wetlands however the surveyed limits of the on-site wetlands were not as extensive as depicted in the NWI data Table 4 provides a summary of all field-mapped wetland features within the 2016 project area The locations of the field-mapped wetlands are depicted in Appendix A Figure 6

Table 4 Wetlands within the 2016 Project Area

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

EW-1 Emergent 009

EW-2 Emergent 003

EW-3 Emergent 001

EW-4 Emergent 008

EW-5 Emergent 005

EW-6 Emergent 001

EW-7 Emergent 001

EW-8 Emergent 010

EW-9 Emergent 003

EW-10 Emergent 002

EW-11 Emergent 005

EW-12 Emergent 003

EW-13 Emergent 001

EW-14 Emergent 002

EW-15 Emergent 005

EW-16 Emergent 022

EW-20 Emergent 013

EW-21 Emergent 004

SSW-5 ScrubShrub 001

SSW-6 ScrubShrub 006

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 15

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 16: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Feature Name Wetland Classification Area

(Acres)

TOTAL 105

EW ndash Emergent Wetland SSW ndash ScrubShrub Wetland

No-Action Alternative No activities affecting Tres Palacios Creek associated drainages or wetlands would occur Therefore no impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur Proposed Action Alternative No earth-grading or other disturbances would occur within the Tres Palacios Creek channel below the OHWM However excavation of the proposed detention basin would impact ES-1 ES-2 EW-16 EW-20 EW-21 SSW-5 and SSW-6 which would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States Therefore adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands would occur as a result of the 2016 project and require a Section 404 permit For the 2016 project a Waters of the United States Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination was prepared in May 2016 for coordination with the USACE-Galveston District In September 2016 a preconstruction notification for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) was prepared and submitted to the USACE for authorization of the fill of 049 acre of waters of the United States including wetlands for the 2016 project Verification of the NWP 43 was received from the USACE in July 2017 A special condition of the permit authorization requires that the permittee purchase a total of 13 FCUs from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank which would mitigate for the adverse impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands as a result of the 2016 project Copies of the USACE coordination and documentation of the mitigation bank credit purchase is included in Appendix D

423 Water Quality

The EPArsquos National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under the CWA controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States In Texas the NPDES program is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part of the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) The 2016 project area is drained by Tres Palacios Creek Runoff within the 2016 project area does not discharge into a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d)-listed threatened or impaired water (TCEQ 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities affecting current water quality conditions of Tres Palacios Creek would occur Therefore no impacts to water quality would occur

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 16

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 17: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Bottomland Forest

Open-space Herbaceous Vegetation

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities with the potential to impact water quality would occur The 2016 project includes more than 5 acres of earth disturbance which would require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) construction site notice and Notice of Intent for the 2016 project Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be addressed through compliance with the TPDES Construction General Permit Short-term sediment-generated impacts would be minimized through the use of BMPs during construction including silt fences inlet protection stone overflow structures and rock check-dam sediment traps Long-term impacts would be minimized through the use of permanent BMPs including grass embankments for erosion control stone and concrete riprap and gabion mattresses With implementation of the BMPs no adverse impacts to water quality as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated 43 Biological Resources

431 Wildlife Habitat

According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrsquos (TPWD) The Vegetation Types of Texas (McMahan et al 1984) the 2016 project area is located within the Crops Region surrounded by the Pecan-Elm Forest Region A field investigation was conducted in March 2016 to assess vegetation within the 2016 project area Vegetation within the 2016 project area is comprised of three general vegetation categories including 1) open-space herbaceous vegetation 2) bottomland forest and 3) herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands

Open-space herbaceous vegetation consists of vegetation dominated by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) yellow wood-sorrel (Oxalis stricta) broomweed (Amphiachryis amoena) hedge parsley (Torillis arvensis) field brome (Bromus arvensis) lantana (Lantana spp) southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis) lily (Lilium spp) green flatsedge western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox) with some trees such as hackberry (Celtis laevigata) huisache (Acacia farnesiana) retama (Parkinsonia aculeata) and Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Based on the field investigation and a review of recent aerial photographs there are two clusters of bottomland forest with canopy cover at or above 40 percent

Bottomland forest includes two tree clusters along former oxbows of Tres Palacios Creek Both clusters are dominated by cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) hackberry green ash retama huisache Chinese tallowtree yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) Herbaceous vegetation includes field brome green flatsedge annual bluegrass (Poa annua) bermudagrass hedge parsley henbit (Lamium amplexicaule) and lantana Approximately 40 percent of the clusters are composed of hackberry 20 percent green ash 20 percent cedar elm 10 percent Chinese tallowtree and 10 percent mix of other species The average diameter at breast height is approximately 10 to 14 inches and range in height from 25 to 50 feet

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 17

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 18: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Herbaceous and ScrubShrub Wetlands

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Herbaceous and scrubshrub wetlands include an herbaceous layer with green flatsedge and common spikerush water primrose swamp smartweed Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) curly dock (Rumex crispus) lamp rush (Juncus effusus) The scrubshrub component included poison bean Chinese tallowtree wax myrtle and black willow (Salix nigra) No-Action Alternative No activities disturbing vegetation would occur Therefore no impacts to wildlife habitat would occur Proposed Action Alternative Construction activities would disturb existing vegetation potentially impacting wildlife habitat during construction Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to prevent erosion and re-vegetate disturbed areas As applicable the contractor would preserve and protect or remove and replace with prior approval of the affected property owner any trees shrubs andor hedges affected within the limits of construction No long-term impacts to wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 2016 project 432 Protected Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve threatened and endangered species Under Section 7 of the ESA federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when a federal action including those they fund or authorize may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered Section 7 is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure that the actions they take do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species A desktop review of the federal and state listed species for Wharton County identified four federally-listed species and 16 state listed species with the potential to occur in Wharton County (TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017) A review of TPWDrsquos Texas Natural Diversity Database for protected species identified no records of occurrence or designated critical habitat for any federal or state listed species within 15 miles of the 2016 project area Species consideration for the federally-listed least tern (Sterna antillarum) piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is only required for wind projects within the migratory route A field investigation conducted in March 2016 identified potential suitable habitat for two state threatened species wood stork (Mycteria americana) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Suitable habitat for the wood stork typically includes shallow standing water in open fields pastures and prairies Habitat for the timber rattlesnake includes floodplains and other riparian areas with dense ground cover No suitable habitat was identified for federally-listed species No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact protected species would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to any federal or state listed species or their preferred habitat

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 18

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 19: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative Table 5 identifies the potential for the 2016 project to impact federal or state listed species occurring in Wharton County

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 19

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 20: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 5 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in Wharton County

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

BIRDS

American -- Year-round resident and local breeder in No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present Peregrine Falcon west Texas nests in tall cliff eyries but the species is a potential (Falco peregrinus migrant across state from more northern migrant of the revised study area anatum) T breeding areas in US and Canada

winters along coast and farther south occupies wide range of habitats during migration including urban areas concentrations along coast and barrier islands low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores coastlines and barrier islands

Attwaterrsquos Greater -- E Historic range in county endemic open No No Impact The revised study area does not Prairie-chicken prairies of mostly thick grass 1 to 3 feet contain preferred habitat for this (Tympanuchus tall from near sea level to 200 feet along species cupido attwateri) coastal plain on upper two-thirds of

Texas coast males form communal display flocks during late winter to early spring booming grounds important breeding February through July

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

--

T

Nests and winters near large rivers lakes marshes and along coasts nests in tall trees or on cliffs near large bodies of water

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Interior Least Tern -- E Found more than 50 miles from a No No Impact Preferred habitat is not present (Sterna antillarum coastline nests along sand and gravel but the species is a potential athalassos) bars within braided streams rivers also

known to nest on man-made structures (inland beaches wastewater treatment plants gravel mines etc) eats small fish and crustaceans when breeding forages within a few hundred feet of colony

migrant of the revised study area

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 20

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 21: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

E -- Nest on barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers sand and gravel pits lake and reservoir shorelines and occasionally gravel rooftops They hover over and dive into standing or flowing water to catch small fish

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)

-- T Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south same habitat as F p tundrius

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding areas in the US and Canada Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats and sandy beaches

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)

T -- Migrates across the state from more northern breeding grounds in the US Wintering populations occur along the Texas Gulf Coast on tidal flats beaches and herbaceous wetlands

No No Effect The 2016 project area does not contain preferred habitat for the species Within Wharton County species consideration only required for wind related projects within the migratory route

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

--

T

Prefers freshwater marshes sloughs and irrigated rice fields but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats nests in marshes low trees on ground in bulrushes or reeds and floating mats

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

White-tailed Hawk (Buteo albidcaudatus)

-- T Near coast on prairies cordgrass flats and scrub-live oak further inland on prairies mesquite and oak savannas and mixed savanna-chaparral breeding March through May

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 21

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 22: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Whooping Crane (Grus americana)

E E Potential migrant via plains through most of the state to coast inhabits estuaries prairies marshes savannahs grasslands croplands pastures roosts in riverine habitat on submerged sandbars in wide unobstructed channels isolated from human disturbance winter resident in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio Counties

No No Effect Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

-- T Forages in prairie ponds flooded pastures or fields ditches and other shallow standing water including saltwater usually roosts communally in tall snags sometimes in association with other wading birds (ie active heronries) breeds in Mexico and moves into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands including those associated with forested areas formerly nested in Texas but no breeding records since 1960

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

FISHES

Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)

--

T

Larger portions of major rivers in Texas usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current bottom type usually of exposed bedrock perhaps in combination with hard clay sand and gravel adults winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn on riffles

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

MAMMALS

Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

--

T

Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 22

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 23: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Species Federal Status

State Status

Preferred Habitat Habitat Present

Species Effect Impact

Justification for Assessment

Red Wolf (Canis rufus)

-- E Extirpated formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas as well as coastal prairies

No No Impact This species is considered extinct in the area

MOLLUSKS

Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis)

--

T

Small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs mixed mud sand and fine gravel tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations scoured bedrock substrates or shifting sand bottoms lower Trinity (questionable) Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina)

-- T Mud gravel and sand substrates generally in areas with slow flow rates Colorado and Guadalupe River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)

--

T

Little known possibly rivers and larger streams and intolerant of impoundment flowing rice irrigation canals possibly sand gravel and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows Brazos and Colorado River basins

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

REPTILES

Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)

--

T

Open arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation including grass cactus scattered brush or scrubby trees soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky burrows into soil enters rodent burrows or hides under rock when inactive breeds March through September

No No Impact The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 23

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 24: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Proj ect

Federal State Habitat Species Effect Species Preferred Habitat Justification for Assessment

Status Status Present Impact

Timber Rattlesna ke -- T Swamps floodplains upland pine and (Crotalus horridus) deciduous woodlands riparian zones

abandoned farmland limestone bluffs sandy soil or black clay prefers dense ground cover (ie grapevines or palmetto)

Yes May Impact Not Likely to Adversely

Impact

The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat

Sources TPWD (2016) USFWS (2017) E ndash Listed Endangered T ndash Listed Threatened ldquo--ldquo ndash No Listing Status

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 24

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 25: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Construction activities may potentially affect two state threatened species wood stork and timber rattlesnake In the event that the species are encountered work in the vicinity would stop immediately and the applicant would initiate coordination with the TPWD to ensure that any unintentional impact to the species is avoided Therefore no impacts to state listed species are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project Other protected species with the potential to occur in the 2016 project area include the federally-endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and state threatened American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Although preferred habitat for these species was not identified within the 2016 project area the two species are potential migrants of the area However given the proximity to its preferred wintering habitat along the Gulf Coast it is not anticipated that the whooping crane would occur within the 2016 project area FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on federally listed species There is no designated critical habitat in the project area therefore none will be impacted as a result of the proposed project

44 Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of federal actions including those they fund or authorize on historic properties Historic properties are properties that are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP The regulations also place major emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes For the 2016 project area a cultural resources survey was conducted under Antiquities Permit 7658 One newly recorded site (41WH142) was identified within the 2016 project area and investigated However based on the lack of buried deposits cultural features or historic significance the site was determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP No additional propertiessites were identified and on July 8 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) issued concurrence that the revised project would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties Coordination of the 2016 project with interested Native American Tribes including the Kiowa Comanche and Tonkawa Tribes was initiated by FEMA on July 7 2017 One response dated August 17 2017 was received from the Comanche Nation indicating that no properties of interest are located within the 2016 project area Copies of the Cultural Resource Survey Report and SHPO correspondence are included in Appendix E No-Action Alternative No ground-disturbing activities would occur Therefore no impacts to cultural resources would occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would include ground-disturbing activities However based on the cultural resources survey performed for the 2016 project area and subsequent consultation with SHPO no impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of the 2016 project

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 25

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 26: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

In the event that unknownundocumented cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered during construction all activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA 45 Socioeconomic Resources

451 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations directs federal agencies to identify and address as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects its programs policies and activities on minority and low-income populations To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on minority and low-income populations current US Census Bureau data for the 2016 project area was reviewed including 2010 Census data and data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey The 2016 project area is encompassed entirely within Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 (see Appendix A Figure 7) Both Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 encompass the same geographic area Race and ethnicity characteristics for the 2016 project area are shown in Table 6 Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo are included for reference purposes

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 26

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 27: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 6 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Census Total Hispanic Black or Geography Population or Latino White African

Alone American Alone

Not Hispanic or Latino

Native American

Hawaiian Indian and

Asian and Other Alaska

Alone PacificNative

IslanderAlone

Alone

Some Other Race Alone

Two or More Races

Total Minority

Texas 25145561 9460921

376

11397345

453

2886825

115

80586

03

948426

38 01

33980

01

319558

13

13748216

547

Wharton County 41280 15445

374

19681

477

5668

137

62

02

17154

04

920 2

lt 01

26

01

242

06

21599

523

City of El Campo 11602 5449

470 416 104

9

01

56

05

1

lt 01

3

lt 01

0

--

6724

580

Census Tract 7407 1875 1109482591

5827 120310

1666 89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

1875 1109

591

582

310

166

89

4

02

1

01

0

--

2

01

11

06

1293

690

Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 27

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 28: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

--

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

According to the 2010 Census data Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 contain a total minority population exceeding 50 percent (69 percent) including a 59 percent HispanicLatino population In comparison the total minority population for the City of El Campo (58 percent) Wharton County (52 percent) and State of Texas (55 percent) all exceed 50 percent

To assess potential impacts of the 2016 project on low-income populations median household income data from the US Census Bureaursquos 2011-2015 American Community Survey was reviewed and compared to the US Department of Health and Human Servicesrsquo (HHS) poverty guidelines Effective January 26 2017 the HHSrsquos poverty threshold is $24600 for a family of four (HHS 2017) Table 7 identifies the median household income and poverty characteristics for the 2016 project area Data for the larger geographies of Texas Wharton County and City of El Campo is included for reference purposes

Table 7 Median Household Income and Poverty Characteristics for the 2016 Project Area

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Poverty Status in the

Total Number of Census Geography Months 1 Past 12 Months by

Households 2

(In 2015 Inflation- Household 2

Adjusted Dollars)

Texas $53207 9149196 1419466

155

Wharton County $45176 14741 2411

164

City of El Campo $45413 3875 742

191

Census Tract 7407 $30227 644 260

404

Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407

$30227 644 260

404

Sources 1 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B19013 2 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2011-2015 5 year Estimates Table B17017

Median household income within the revised study area is above the HHS poverty threshold of $24600 However approximately 40 percent of households within Census Tract 7407 and Block Group 1 Census Tract 7407 represent low-income populations By comparison approximately 19 percent of households in El Campo and approximately 16 percent of households in Wharton County represent low-income populations

No-Action Alternative All populations living within the vicinity of Tres Palacios Creek including minority and low-income populations would remain at risk to frequent flood events resulting in a potential adverse impact

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 28

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 29: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would limit or eliminate the risk of flooding for all populations equally Minority and low-income populations along with non-minority and non-low-income populations would benefit from channel improvements to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek Therefore no adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations would occur as a result of the 2016 project 452 Hazardous Materials

An assessment for hazardous materials concerns including potential impacts to oil and gas facilities was conducted for the 2016 project area A regulatory records review prepared by GeoSearch in August 2017 identified three hazardous materials sites within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (see Table 8) Table 8 Hazardous Materials Sites

Distance Site Name Address from Study

Area Database Description

Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road

015 Mile IHWCA Cleanup for contamination of metals antimony and lead Inactive status as of 03012010

PST Two petroleum storage tanks removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or violations reported

Diamond Mini-Mart 12 1602 S Mechanic St

041 Mile LPST Minor soil contamination no remedial action required Final concurrence issued 10051992

El Campo Warehouse SH 71 and US 59

044 Mile LPST Remediation for groundwater impact Final concurrence issued 04182002

Sources GeoSearch (2017) TCEQ (2017)

No hazardous materials sites are located within the limits of the 2016 project area A copy of the GeoSearch Radius Report is included in Appendix F A GeoSearch database review for oil and gas well facilities identified eight facilities within 05 mile of the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The well facilities include one permitted location one sidetrack well surface location and six identified as dry holes None of the facilities are located within the 2016 project area The GeoSearch Oil and Gas Report is included in Appendix F A review of Railroad Commission of Texas data identified one pipeline facility crossing the revised study area (see Appendix A Figure 8) The active 24-inch pipeline facility operated by the Houston Pipeline Company is used to transport natural gas

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 29

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 30: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Oil and Gas Pipeline Facilities

Oil and Gas Well Facilities

El Campo Warehouse

Diamond Mini-Mart 12

Texas Army National Guard Armory

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

No-Action Alternative No construction activities with the potential to affect hazardous materials including oil and gas facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to hazardous materials

Proposed Action Alternative The potential for identified hazardous materials sites and oil and gas facilities to be affected by the 2016 project are discussed below

One industrial hazardous waste corrective action (IHWCA) listing and one petroleum storage tank (PST) listing were identified for the Texas Army National Guard Armory facility located along CR 406 approximately 015 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information hazardous waste cleanup activities for the facility were completed and the case identified as inactive as of March 1 2010 In addition two PSTs were removed from the ground in August 1990 No spills or other violations are reported for the facility Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One leaking petroleum storage tank (LPST) listing was identified for Diamond Mini-Mart 12 The site is located approximately 044 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information no remediation activities were required and the TCEQ issued final concurrence for the site on October 5 1992 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One LPST listing was identified for the El Campo Warehouse facility located approximately 041 mile from the 2016 project area According to the available information remediation activities for the LPST were completed with the TCEQ issuing final concurrence for the facility on April 18 2002 Based on a review of the database information and location of the site relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to the hazardous materials site as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

No oilgas well facilities are located within the limits of the 2016 project area However eight well facilities are located within 05 mile of the 2016 project area (RRC 2017) Based on a review of the database information and location of the facilities relative to the 2016 project area no impacts to any well facility as a result of the 2016 project are anticipated

One active natural gas pipeline facility was identified within the 2016 project area which represents a potential adverse impact for the 2016 project (RRC 2017) Prior to construction

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 30

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 31: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

activities coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to verify the location and depth of the facility and to identify measures to protect the facility in-place It is assumed that coordination with the pipeline operator would mitigate for the adverse impact to the natural gas pipeline facility as a result of the 2016 project A field investigation conducted in March 2016 did not identify any additional hazardous materials concerns for the 2016 project In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during construction activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations 453 Noise

For the 2016 project area adjacent land use is almo st exclusively agricultural Nearby sensitive noise receptors include rural residences and commercialindustrial facilities concentrated along US 59 and CR 406 Existing ambient noise within the 2016 project area is primarily generated by traffic along US 59 and CR 406 Noise levels within and adjacent to the study area would increase during construction activities as a result of construction equipment and increase vehicular activity No-Action Alternative No noise-generating construction activities would occur Therefore there would be no temporary or permanent impacts to existing ambient noise levels Proposed Action Alternative Short-term noise impacts are anticipated as construction activities associated with the 2016 project would temporarily increase existing noise levels in the 2016 project area Industry standard BMPs would be implemented to mitigate short-term noise impacts including performing construction activities during daylight hours only when occasional loud noise is more tolerable Implementation of the BMPs would result in no short-term noise impacts during the construction period of the 2016 project No long-term noise impacts would occur as a result of the 2016 project 454 Transportation

As documented in the 2012 EAFONSI the 2012 project area encompassed 10 roadway crossings and one railroad crossing For the 2016 project the railroad crossing has been eliminated and the number of roadway crossings has been reduced to two US 59 and CR 406 cross the 2016 project area No-Action Alternative No activities with the potential to impact nearby roadway facilities would occur Therefore there would be no impacts to the local transportation network Proposed Action Alternative No new public transportation facilities or improvements to existing facilities within the 2016 project area are proposed Temporary access from CR 406 would be

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 31

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 32: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

obtained for the duration of construction only and limited to equipment and personnel associated with the 2016 project Permanent access for construction and maintenance activities would occur from existing CR 405 along property owned by the City of El Campo and encompassing the proposed detention pond No short-term or long-term impacts to any transportation facility would occur as a result of the 2016 project 455 Public Health and Safety

For the City of El Campo and Wharton County the most frequent disaster affecting the City of El Campo and Wharton County is widespread flooding from tropical storms and other severe rain events Since 1990 Wharton County has experienced numerous flood events affecting public health and safety including four Presidential Disaster Declarations From October 1994 to September 2006 24 flood events have been recorded for Wharton County resulting in property damage estimated at $2595M (NCDC 2017) No-Action Alternative No activities to mitigate flooding along Tres Palacios Creek would occur Adverse impacts to public health and safety as a result of repetitive flood events would continue to occur Proposed Action Alternative The 2016 project would increase the flood storage capacity of Tres Palacios Creek alleviating the flood risk of 32 structures and benefitting public health and safety Therefore no adverse impacts to public health and safety are anticipated as a result of the 2016 project 46 Environmental Summary Table

Table 9 includes a summary of the potential impacts of the 2016 project and the corresponding conditions or mitigation necessary to offset any potential impacts

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 32

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 33: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Table 9 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Geology and Soils No impacts to geology anticipated Revised study area located outside El Campo Urbanized Area therefore the 2016 project subject to FPPA 2016 project activities include the conversion of 46 acres to a non-agricultural land use

Completion of Form NRCS-CPA-106 identified a Total Corridor Assessment score of 40 points less than the total 160 points possible Therefore coordination of the 2016 project with the NRCS is not required

None required

Air Quality Potential short-term impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities

None required Contractors would water down disturbed areas to suppress airborne dust as necessary Equipment would be properly maintained and idling times limited to reduce emissions

Groundwater No impacts to groundwater anticipated None required None required

Floodplains Project activities include work within the 100-year base floodplain of Tres Palacios Creek The Proposed Action Alternative would reduce the current base elevation of the 100-year floodplain approximately 1 foot

Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required

Project activities would be coordinated with the local floodplain administrator and completed in compliance with local floodplain ordinances All coordination and applicant compliance activities would be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file

Water Quality Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required

BMPs would be utilized during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and to prevent stormwater pollution Temporary BMPS utilized would include

Silt fences

Inlet protection

Stone Overflow Structures

Rock check-dam sediment traps Permanent BMPs would include

Grass embankments

Stone and concrete riprap

Gabion mattresses

Surface Waters and Wetlands

2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States

Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 (Stormwater Management Facilities) for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands

USACE NWP 43 authorization received July 31 2017 Projectactivities must satisfy compliance with the NWP GeneralRegion Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Management Program including the following Special Conditions for the Proposed Action Alternative

1 Before commencing work the applicant will purchase a total of 13 FCUs (05 Maintenance of Plant and Animal Communities FCUs 04 Temporary Storage of Surface Waters FCUs and 04 Removal and Sequestration of Elements FCUs) from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank

2 The permittee will submit documentation to the USACE-Galveston District verifying that 13 FCUs were purchased from the Danza del Rio Mitigation Bank prior to the start of work within the jurisdictional area

Biological Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated None required In the event that any federal andor state-listed species are observed Resources Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two state-listed species during construction activities the contractor would cease work in the

immediate area and contact USFWS or TPWD as appropriate for further guidance

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 33

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 34: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs

Cultural Resources No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP

Project activities coordinated with Texas Historical Commission (THC) beginning May 2016 On July 8 2016 SHPO issued concurrence that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on any listed or eligible for listing NRHP properties No additional THC coordination required

In the event that cultural deposits including Native American pottery stone tools bones or human remains are uncovered all project activities within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted and FEMA notified FEMA would consult with the SHPO and project activities in the area would not resume until completion of consultation to ensure compliance with the NHPA

Environmental Justice

No adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations anticipated

None required None required

Hazardous Materials One 24-inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required

Coordination with the pipeline operator would be required to develop measures for protecting the pipeline in-place during construction activities and to minimize potential impacts In the event that previously unknownundocumented hazardous materials are encountered during project activities the hazardous materials would be managed and disposed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations

Noise Temporary short-term increases in existing noise levels anticipated as a result of construction activities No permanent noise impacts anticipated

None required Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable

Transportation No impacts None required None required

Public Health and Safety

2016 project activities anticipated to benefit public health and safety by limiting or eliminating potential flood hazards

None required None required

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 34

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 35: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

50 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As defined in 40 CFR 15087 a cumulative effect is the ldquoImpact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actionsrdquo The 2016 project would mitigate the effects of frequent flood events within the City of El Campo and Wharton County along Tres Palacios Creek including recurring property damage and risks to public health and safety In reviewing impacts socioeconomic resources were identified as having the most potential to experience cumulative effects The effects to socioeconomic resources are expected to be beneficial and effects to other resources expected to be either non-existent or minimal and temporary For these r easons the 2016 project when combined with past present and future activities within the City of El Campo and Wharton County would not significantly add to or raise local cumulative environmental impacts to a level of significance No other FEMA funded projects have been conducted in the project area

60 AGENCY COORDINATION

Agency coordination conducted for the 2012 project is documented in the 2012 EAFONSI Table 10 identifies additional agency coordination conducted for the 2016 project in preparation of the Supplemental EA

Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA

Agency Correspondence to Agency

Date Description

Response from Agency

Date Description

USACE December 2016

NWP 43 PCN submitted January 2017

USACE comments on NWP 43 PCN submittal

February 2017

Resubmittal of NWP 43 PCN addressing USACE comments

May 2017 USACE request copy of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for coordination with SHPO

May 2017 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE

July 2017 USACE issued authorization of NWP 43 for Proposed Action Alternative

THC June 2016 Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted

July 2016 SHPO issues concurrence on the Survey Report No further consultation required for the Proposed Action Alternative

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 35

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 36: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

70 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Prior to publication of the 2012 EAFONSI three public meetings were conducted to facilitate public input regarding the Tres Palacios Watershed Flood Protection Planning Study being prepared for the City of El Campo Wharton County and Matagorda County including

December 15 2009 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas

March 23 2010 ndash Bay City Service Center Bay City Texas

April 20 2010 ndash City Council Chambers El Campo Texas A Notice of Availability for the Draft 2012 EAFONSI was published in the El Campo Leader-News on October 13 2012 and October 27 2012 No comments were received within the 30-day public comment period ending on November 12 2012 No additional public involvement has been conducted for the project since issuance of the FONSI in November 2012 However the City of El Campo will notify the public of the availability of the Draft Supplemental EA through the publication of a public notice in the local newspaper of record The Draft Supplemental EA will be made available for public review at a physical location in the project area and on FEMArsquos web site (wwwfemagov) FEMA will conduct at 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice FEMA will consider and respond to all public comments in the Final EA If no substantive comments are received the Draft Supplemental EA will become final and a FONSI will be issued for the project

80 LIST OF PREPARERS

Document Preparers Cindy Engelhardt PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Dan Franz PE CFM Senior Project Manager Halff Associates Inc Keith Dewey AICP Environmental Manager Halff Associates Inc David Najvar Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Brian Boe Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Danny Griffith Environmental Scientist Halff Associates Inc Joel Butler Archeologist AmaTerra Environmental Inc Steven Eisenhour Historian AmaTerra Environmental Inc Government Contributors Marty Chester Mitigation Specialist FEMA Region 6 Kevin Jaynes Regional Environmental Officer FEMA Region 6 Dorothy Cook Environmental Specialist FEMA Region 6 Local Sponsor Contributors

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 36

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 37: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

Mindi Snyder City Manager City of El Campo

90 REFERENCES CITED

Mace Robert E Sarah C Davidson Edward S Angle and William F Mullican III 2006 Aquifers of the Gulf Coast of Texas Texas Water Development Board

McMahan Craig A Roy G Frye and Kirby L Brown 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas

Including Cropland TPWD National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 2017 National Center for Environmental Information

httpswwwncdcnoaagov Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey

httpwebsoilsurveyscegovusdagov (Accessed September 25 2017) Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) 2017 Public GIS Viewer

httpwwwrrcstatetxusabout-usresource-centerresearchgis-viewers (Accessed August 28 2017)

Solis Raul Fernando 1981 Upper Tertiary and Quaternary Depositional Systems Central

Coastal Plain Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 2014 2014 Texas Integrated Report of

Surface Water Quality httpswwwtceqtexasgovassetspublicwaterqualityswqmassess14txir2014_303dpd f (Accessed September 13 2017)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2016 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Wharton County July 25 Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2017 Water Data for Texas

httpswaterdatafortexasorggroundwaterwell6661302 (Accessed September 20 2017)

US Census Bureau (USCB) 2011a 2010 Census ndash Summary File 1 Table P9 ndash Hispanic or

Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race USCB 2011b 2010 Census ndash Urban Cluster Reference Map El Campo TX

httpswww2censusgovgeomapsdc10mapUAUC_RefMapucuc26389_el_campo_tx DC10UC26389pdf (Accessed August 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 37

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32
Page 38: Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment City of El ......Dec 26, 2017  · flooding along Tres Palacios Creek within the City of El Campo. The 2012 project included benched channel

Tres Palacios Creek Channel Improvements Project

USCB 2017a 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B17017 ndash Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Household Type by Age of Householder

USCB 2017b 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B19013 ndash

Median Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2017 Poverty Guidelines Office of

the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation httpsaspehhsgovpoverty-guidelines (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2017 Texas NonattainmentMaintenance Status

for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants httpswww3epagovairqualitygreenbookanayo_txhtml (Accessed August 11 2017)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017 Information for Planning and Consultation

(IPaC) Wharton County Texas httpsecosfwsgovipac (Accessed October 16 2017)

SRL-PJ- 06-TX-2011-008 Page 38

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • Table 10 Summary of Agency Coordination for the Supplemental EA
          1. ii
          2. iii
          3. iv
          4. SRLPJ 06TX2011008
          5. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_2
          6. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_3
          7. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_4
          8. Medium
          9. High Bernard
          10. 60
          11. 58
          12. High
          13. 76
          14. 73
          15. Md Bernard
          16. High_2
          17. Low
          18. 219
          19. 212
          20. Medium_2
          21. High_3
          22. 181
          23. 175
          24. Somewhat poorly drained
          25. Medium_3
          26. Very low to moderately low
          27. High_4
          28. 181_2
          29. 175_2
          30. W Water
          31. Source NRCS 2017
          32. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_5
          33. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_6
          34. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_7
          35. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_8
          36. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_9
          37. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_10
          38. ES Ephemeral Stream Calculated using an average width of 20 feet
          39. EW Emergent Wetland SSW ScrubShrub Wetland
          40. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_11
          41. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_12
          42. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_13
          43. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_14
          44. BIRDS
          45. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum
          46. T
          47. islands lowaltitude migrant stopovers at
          48. No Impact
          49. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area
          50. Attwaters Greater Prairiechicken Tympanuchus cupido attwateri
          51. Attwaters Greater
          52. tall from near sea level to 200 feet along
          53. No Impact_2
          54. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species
          55. T_2
          56. lakes marshes and along coasts nests
          57. No Impact_3
          58. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos
          59. Interior Least Tern
          60. E
          61. and crustaceans when breeding forages
          62. No Impact_4
          63. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_2
          64. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_15
          65. Least Tern Sterna antillarum
          66. E_2
          67. T_3
          68. No
          69. No Impact_5
          70. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
          71. T_4
          72. T_5
          73. No_2
          74. No Effect
          75. Red Knot
          76. T_6
          77. Migrates across the state from more
          78. No_3
          79. No Effect_2
          80. Whitefaced Ibis
          81. T_7
          82. No_4
          83. No Impact_6
          84. Whitefaced Ibis Plegadis chihi
          85. T_8
          86. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_2
          87. Whitetailed Hawk Buteo albidcaudatus
          88. undefined
          89. T_9
          90. No_5
          91. No Impact_7
          92. No_6
          93. No Impact_8
          94. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_3
          95. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_16
          96. Whooping Crane Grus americana
          97. Whooping Crane
          98. E_3
          99. sandbars in wide unobstructed channels
          100. No Effect_3
          101. Preferred habitat is not present but the species is a potential migrant of the revised study area_3
          102. Wood Stork Mycteria americana
          103. Wood Stork
          104. T_10
          105. other wading birds ie active heronries
          106. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact
          107. The revised study area may contain preferred habitat Operations typically associated with vegetation removal could potentially destroy existing habitat
          108. FISHES
          109. Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus
          110. T_11
          111. Larger portions of major rivers in Texas
          112. No Impact_9
          113. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_4
          114. MAMMALS
          115. T_12
          116. Possible as transient bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas
          117. No_7
          118. No Impact_10
          119. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_5
          120. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_17
          121. Red Wolf Canis rufus
          122. undefined_2
          123. E_4
          124. No_8
          125. No Impact_11
          126. This species is considered extinct in the area
          127. MOLLUSKS
          128. Smooth Pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis
          129. T_13
          130. No_9
          131. No Impact_12
          132. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_6
          133. Texas Pimpleback Quadrula petrina
          134. undefined_3
          135. No_10
          136. No Impact_13
          137. Texas Fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon
          138. TT
          139. No_11
          140. No Impact_14
          141. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_7
          142. REPTILES
          143. Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
          144. T_14
          145. No_12
          146. No Impact_15
          147. The revised study area does not contain preferred habitat for this species_8
          148. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_18
          149. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017
          150. Timber Rattlesnake
          151. T_15
          152. Yes
          153. May Impact Not Likely to Adversely Impact_2
          154. Sources TPWD 2016 USFWS 2017 E Listed Endangered T Listed Threatened No Listing Status
          155. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_19
          156. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_20
          157. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_21
          158. Texas
          159. Source US Census Bureau 2010 Summary File 1 Table P9
          160. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_22
          161. Texas_2
          162. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_23
          163. Texas Army National Guard Armory 801 Armory Road
          164. 015 Mile
          165. IHWCA
          166. PST
          167. Diamond MiniMart 12 1602 S Mechanic St
          168. 041 Mile
          169. LPST
          170. 044 Mile
          171. LPST_2
          172. Sources GeoSearch 2017 TCEQ 2017
          173. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_24
          174. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_25
          175. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_26
          176. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_27
          177. Geology and Soils
          178. None required
          179. Air Quality
          180. Potential shortterm impacts including localized increases in vehicle emissions and dust particles as a result of construction activities
          181. None required_2
          182. Groundwater
          183. No impacts to groundwater anticipated
          184. None required_3
          185. None required_4
          186. Floodplains
          187. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator for the City of El Campo and Wharton County would be required
          188. Water Quality
          189. Project activities include more than 5 acres of earth disturbance
          190. Coordination with TCEQ would be required Project activities would comply with TCEQ TPDES Construction General Permit TXR150000 Preparation of a SWPPP construction site notice and Notice of Intent would be required
          191. Surface Waters and Wetlands
          192. 2016 project activities would result in the loss of 049 acre of waters of the United States
          193. Project activities would be authorized under USACE NWP 43 Stormwater Management Facilities for impacts to waters of the United States including wetlands
          194. Biological Resources
          195. Impacts to federally listed species are not anticipated Potential impacts to suitable habitat for two statelisted species
          196. None required_5
          197. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_28
          198. Resource Area Impact Agency Coordination Permits Mitigation BMPs
          199. Cultural Resources
          200. No adverse effects to propertiessites listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP
          201. None required_6
          202. None required_7
          203. Hazardous Materials
          204. One 24inch natural gas pipeline crosses the revised study area
          205. Coordination with the pipeline operator Houston Pipeline Company would be required
          206. Noise
          207. None required_8
          208. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours only when occasional loud noises are more tolerable
          209. No impacts
          210. None required_9
          211. None required_10
          212. None required_11
          213. None required_12
          214. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_29
          215. USACE
          216. NWP 43 PCN submitted
          217. February 2017
          218. May 2017
          219. May 2017_2
          220. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted to USACE
          221. July 2017
          222. THC
          223. June 2016
          224. Cultural Resources Survey Report submitted
          225. July 2016
          226. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_30
          227. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_31
          228. SRLPJ 06TX2011008_32