City of La Feria, Texas Storm Water Pump Station on AN-49

Draft Environmental Assessment

City of La Feria, Texas Storm Water Pump Station on AN-49

Drainage Channel HMGP-DR1931- TX Project #1 Cameron County, Texas September 2012

Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 800 North Loop 288 Denton, Texas 76209-3698

Thispageisintentionallyleftblank.

Table of Contents

i

Table of Contents

Section1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1‐1

Section2 PurposeandNeed......................................................................................................................2‐1

Section3 Alternatives..................................................................................................................................3‐1

3.1NoActionAlternative...............................................................................................................................................3‐1 3.2ProposedAction..........................................................................................................................................................3‐23.3AlternativesConsideredandDismissed..........................................................................................................3‐5

Section4 AffectedEnvironmentandPotentialImpacts....................................................................4‐1

4.1PhysicalResources....................................................................................................................................................4‐1 4.1.1Geology&Soils................................................................................................................................................4‐14.1.2AirQuality.........................................................................................................................................................4‐2

4.2WaterResources.........................................................................................................................................................4‐3 4.2.1WaterQuality...................................................................................................................................................4‐34.2.2WatersoftheU.S.,IncludingWetlands................................................................................................4‐4 4.2.3Floodplains........................................................................................................................................................4‐6

4.3CoastalResources......................................................................................................................................................4‐8 4.4BiologicalResources...............................................................................................................................................4‐10

4.4.1ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesandCriticalHabitat........................................................4‐104.4.2WildlifeandFish...........................................................................................................................................4‐13

4.5CulturalResources...................................................................................................................................................4‐14 4.6SocioeconomicResources....................................................................................................................................4‐15

4.6.1EnvironmentalJustice................................................................................................................................4‐154.6.2HazardousMaterial.....................................................................................................................................4‐17 4.6.3Noise..................................................................................................................................................................4‐17 4.6.4Traffic................................................................................................................................................................4‐184.6.5PublicServiceandUtilities......................................................................................................................4‐18 4.6.6PublicHealthandSafety...........................................................................................................................4‐18

4.7SummaryTable.........................................................................................................................................................4‐19

Section5 CumulativeImpactsandMitigation......................................................................................5‐1

Section6 AgencyCoordination,PublicInvolvementandPermits.................................................6‐1

6.3AgencyCoordination................................................................................................................................................6‐16.2PublicParticiaption...................................................................................................................................................6‐2 6.3Permits............................................................................................................................................................................6‐2

Section7 References....................................................................................................................................7‐1

Section8 ListofPreparers..........................................................................................................................8‐1

Table of Contents

ii

Section9 Appendices...................................................................................................................................9‐1

A‐1LowerRioGrandeFloodControlProjectMaps A‐2RioGrandeWildandScenicRiverSegmentMap A‐3U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceWetlandsInventoryMap,LaFeria,Texas A‐4FloodInsuranceRateMap(FIRM),CameronCounty,Texas A‐5U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceCriticalHabitatMap A‐6THCHistoricalPropertiesMap,LaFeria,Texas A‐7EnvirofactsSearchResults,LaFeriaStormWaterPumpStationProposedProjectArea A‐8CorrespondenceDocuments ListofFiguresFigure1ProposedProjectArea(GoogleEarthPro,2012)..................................................................................................1‐2Figure2LaFeria,Texas,August9,2008(FEMA2008)........................................................................................................2‐1Figure3AN‐49ConceptualPlan......................................................................................................................................................3‐3Figure4ProposedStormWaterPumpStationSitePlan......................................................................................................3‐4Figure5AlternativeLocationMap(GoogleEarthPro,2012)............................................................................................3‐5Figure6CoastalBoundaryMap.......................................................................................................................................................4‐9Figure7VegetationatProposedProjectSiteasViewedfromIBWCLevee..............................................................4‐11Figure8Jaguarundi(TPWD)..........................................................................................................................................................4‐12Figure9Ocelot(TPWD)....................................................................................................................................................................4‐12

ListofTablesTable1PropertiesofSoilinProjectArea....................................................................................................................................4‐1Table2USFWSEndangeredSpeciesList(Source:USFWSWebsite)...........................................................................4‐10Table3DemographicDataforProjectArea(Source:2000U.S.Census)...................................................................4‐16Table4PopulationData...................................................................................................................................................................4‐17Table5ImpactsonAffectedEnvironment...............................................................................................................................4‐19Table6AgencyCoordination............................................................................................................................................................6‐1

1‐1

List of Acronyms

APE AreaofPotentialEffectAQCR AirQualityControlRegionsBMP BestManagementPracticesCAA CleanAirActCERCLA ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,andLiabilityActCFR CodeofFederalRegulationsCWA CleanWaterActCZMA CoastalZoneManagementActEA EnvironmentalAssessmentESA EndangeredSpeciesActETJ extraterritorialjurisdictionFEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgencyFIRM FloodInsuranceRateMapFONSI FindingofNoSignificantImpactGLO GeneralLandOfficeHMGP HazardMitigationGrantProgramIBWC InternationalBoundaryandWaterCommissionMBTA MigratoryBirdTreatyActNAAQS NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsNEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActNRHP NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesPA ProgrammaticAgreementRCP reinforcedconcretepipeRCRA ResourceConservationandRecoveryActSARA SuperfundAmendmentsandReauthorizationActSHPO StateHistoricPreservationOfficeSWDA SolidWasteDisposalActSWPPP StormWaterPollutionPreventionPlanSWPS StormWaterPumpStationTCEQ TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQualityTDSHS TexasDepartmentofStateHealthServicesTHC TexasHistoricalCommissionTMDL TotalMaximumDailyLoadTPDES TexasPollutantDischargeEliminationSystemTPWD TexasParksandWildlifeDepartmentTSCA ToxicSubstanceControlActTWDB TexasWaterDevelopmentBoardUSACE UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineersUSEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyUSFWS UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeServiceWIID WaterInformationIntegrationandDissemination

1‐1

Section 1

Introduction

TheCityofLaFeriainCameronCountyislocatedintheLowerRioGrandeValleyregionofSouthTexas,arelativelyflatterrainareaneartheGulfCoast.LaFerialiesnorthoftheArroyoColoradoinanareawherenaturaloverlanddrainagetotheArroyoColoradoisrestrictedduetotheabsenceofsignificanttopographicreliefandsubstantiallanddevelopment.TributaryinflowstotheArroyoColoradooccurthroughanextensivenetworkofdrainagechannels.Inrecentyears,HurricaneDolly(2008)andHurricaneAlex(2010)havecausedfloodinginLaFeriaandthesurroundingareas.BothDollyandAlexcausedsubstantialfloodinginLaFeriaandresultedininundationofU.S.Highway83,amajorroadwayandthedesignatedevacuationrouteforthisregion.

TheInternationalBoundaryandWaterCommission(IBWC)isaninternationalagencywhichinterpretsandappliestheboundaryandwatertreatiesoftheUnitedStatesandMexico.TheUnitedStatessectionoftheIBWCoperatesandmaintainsthreefloodcontrolsystemsontheRioGrande.TheIBWCisresponsiblefortheLowerRioGrandeFloodControlSystemwhichcontains270milesoffloodcontrolleveesalongtheRioGrande,interiorfloodways,andtheArroyoColorado(AppendixA‐1).TheArroyoColorado,a53‐milenaturalchannelthatbreaksofftheinteriorfloodwayaboutsixmilestothewest,isconfinedbyhighterracesoneachbankandby25milesofleveesthatwereconstructedtoprotecturban,suburban,andhighlydevelopedirrigatedfarmlandsintheRioGrandedeltafromfloods.TheIBWCleveeextendsalongtheArroyoColoradofromtheconfluencewiththeNorthFloodwaytoupstreamoftheCityofLaFeria(AppendixA‐1).AN‐49mustdrainthroughtheIBWCArroyoColoradonorthleveeandthecurrentculvertlocatedhereisasingle24‐inchreinforcedconcretepipe(RCP).ThisstructureisgatedattheleveesoitcanbeclosedbytheIBWCtopreventbackwaterflowwhentheArroyoColoradoisinfloodstageconditions.

Theproposedstormwaterpumpstation(SWPS)onAN‐49drainagechannelwouldbelocatedsoutheastoftheCityofLaFeriawithinitsextraterritorialjurisdictioninsouthwestCameronCounty,Texas(Figure1).ConstructionofthisSWPSwouldenabletheCitytopumpstormwaterovertheIBWCgatetoreducefloodinginLaFeriawhenfloodconditionsrequiretheIBWCgatetobeclosed.

TheCityofLaFeriahaspreparedandsubmittedanapplicationforFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)fundingundertheHazardMitigationGrantProgram(HMGP).FEMAisconsideringfundingtheconstructionoftheproposedSWPSprojecttomitigatethefloodhazardinthisarea.TheHMGPisauthorizedunderSection404oftheRobertT.StaffordDisasterReliefandEmergencyAssistanceActwhichisafundingsourceforcost‐effectivemeasuresthatwouldreduceoreliminatethethreatoffuturesimilardamageduringadisaster.

ThisdraftEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)hasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)of1969,thePresident’sCouncilonEnvironmentalQualityregulationstoimplementNEPA(40CodeofFederalRegulationsParts1500‐1508),andFEMA’sregulationsimplementingNEPA(44CFRPart10).FEMAisrequiredtoconsiderpotentialenvironmentalimpactsbeforefundingorapprovingactionsandprojects.ThepurposeofthisdraftEAistoanalyzethepotentialenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedSWPSproject.FEMAwillusethefindingsinthisdraftEAtodeterminewhethertoprepareanEnvironmentalImpactStatementoraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI).

Section 1 Introduction

1‐2

Figure 1 Proposed Project Area (Google Earth Pro, 2012)

Section 1 Introduction

1‐3

Thispageisintentionallyleftblank.

2‐1

Section 2

Purpose and Need

TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency’s(FEMA’s)HazardMitigationGrantProgram(HMGP)providesfundstostateandlocalgovernmentstoimplementlong‐termhazardmitigationmeasuresafteramajordisasterdeclaration.ThepurposeoftheHMGPistoreducethelossoflifeandpropertyduetonaturaldisastersandtoenablemitigationmeasurestobeimplementedduringtheimmediaterecoveryandresponsefromadeclareddisastersuchasforfloodmitigationassistance.TheHMGPisauthorizedunderSection404oftheRobertT.StaffordDisasterReliefandEmergencyAssistanceAct.

ThisprojectisneededtoreducefloodingintheCityofLaFeriaandpartsofthesurroundingunincorporatedareastoitssouthwest.LaFeriaislocatedintheLowerRioGrandeValleyregionneartheGulfCoast.Inrecentyears,HurricaneDolly(2008)andHurricaneAlex(2010)havecausedfloodinginLaFeriaandthesurroundingarea.Whenfacinglarge‐scalestormevents,theCityofLaFeriastormwaterdrainageischallengedbytheflatterrainandlowelevationsassociatedwiththeRioGrandeValleyanditsproximitytotheGulfofMexico.Therelativelyminorterrainslopeallowsstormwatertopondwithlittlechanceofflowinganddrainingefficiently.

TropicalstormsarealsoasignificantthreattotheresidentsofLaFeria,leavingpartsofortheentirecitywithoututilityserviceforweeksormore.Duringaseverestormevent,theIBWCclosesthegatesondrainagechannelstopreventtheriseandbackflowfromtheArroyoColorado.Whenthegatesareclosed,stormwaterrunoffcannotdrainandfloodwatersbackupintotheCity,floodinglocalstreetsandhomesuntiladrainagerouteisaccessible(Figure2).Duringseverestorms,floodingoccursinsectionsofU.S.Highway83,alimitedaccessexpresswayintheCityofLaFeria.ThiseliminatestheuseofU.S.Highway83asahurricaneevacuationrouteformostresidentsofCameronCounty.U.S.

Figure 2 La Feria, Texas, August 9, 2008 (FEMA 2008)

Section 2 Purpose and Need

2‐2

Highway83accommodatesanaverageof74,000vehiclesadayinLaFeriaareaundernormalcircumstances,creatingadangeroussituationwhentheroadwayisnotaccessibleforhazardevacuation.TheCityofLaFeriaisinneedofresourcestocontrolfloodinginthesouthwesternpartofLaFeria’sextraterritorialjurisdictionandpreventfutureflooddamagesandpropertylosses.

3‐1

Section 3

Alternatives

Thissectiondescribesthealternativesconsideredincludingtheproposedaction.AdescriptionofexistingconditionsisincludedunderthenoactionalternativeinSection3.1.

3.1 No Action Alternative Underthe“noaction”alternative,noactionwouldbetakentomitigatefloodhazardsinLaFeria.Thenoactionalternativeprovidesabaselineagainstwhichtomeasurethepositiveandnegativeimpactsoftheactionalternatives.Evaluationofthenoactionalternativeaccountsforlikelyconditionsinthefutureifaprojectisnotimplementedtomitigatefloodhazards.

LaFeriaislocatedwithintheArroyoColoradowatershed.In1935,asystemofdams,levees,andchannelswascompletedintheRioGrandeValleytomitigatefloodhazards.ThesystemissometimescalledtheRioGrandefloodwayandincludestheArroyoColoradonearLaFeria.ThisfloodcontrolsystemisoperatedbytheIBWC,andpartiallydivertsfloodwatersfromtheRioGrandeintoanartificialchannelcalledtheMainNorthFloodwaylocatedabouttenmileswestofLaFeria.FloodingfromtheArroyoColoradoisnotmappedorconsideredarisktotheCityofLaFeria.TheIBWCoperatesleveesalongtheArroyoColoradowhichprotectthesouthwesternportionoftheCityfrominundationduringhighflowontheArroyoColorado.TheIBWCisrequiredtoclosethegatestooutletstructuresalongtheleveeduringhighfloweventstopreventbackflowfromtheArroyoColorado.WhentheIBWCclosesthegates,thisinhibitstheflowofstormwatertoexittheAN‐49drainagechannelthroughthegateandleveestructure.FloodwatersoriginatefromstormwaterrunoffthatisnotabletoexittheAN‐49drainagechannelandentertheArroyoColoradowhenthefloodgatesareclosed.ThishasresultedinlongtermfloodinginmanyportionsoftheCityofLaFeria.

TheCityofLaFeriaexperiencesintenserainfallsfromthunderstorms,tropicaldepressionsandstorms,andhurricanes.TheseintenseraineventsprovideasignificantpotentialforfloodingwithintheCityandthesurroundingarea.Slowlypermeableloamyandclaysoilsandflatlandscapesresultinpoordrainagethatcontributestosustainedflooding.

GiventheconditionsintheCityofLaFeriathatcontributetofloodhazards,ifnoactionistaken,futurefloodingwillcontinueandprolongedinundationwilloccur.FloodingintheCityofLaFeriacompromisespublicsafety,damagesprivatepropertyandcauseshumanhealthimpacts.Intenseraineventscauseinundationofroadways,whichcausesunsafedrivingconditionsandalackofaccessibilitytomajorroadways.

InundationofU.S.Highway83isofparticularconcernbecauseitistheprimarydesignatedevacuationroutefortheCityofLaFeriaduringtropicalstormsandhurricanes.U.S.Highway83isthemaineast‐westcorridorintheLaFeriaarea.In2008,theCityofLaFeriawasseverelyimpactedbyHurricaneDolly.AsaresultoftheheavyrainfallassociatedwithDolly,portionsofU.S.Highway83wereunderfloodwaterformorethanaweek,causingaseveretrafficdisruption.InundationofU.S.Highway83impededevacuationandtheabilityoffirstrespondersandsocialserviceagenciestomobilizeandprovideassistancetoaffectedpopulations.

Section 3 Alternatives

3‐2

Inaddition,ifnoactionistaken,floodinghasthepotentialtocontributetohomesteadfloodingandinundationofagriculturalland.Floodingofagriculturallandmayresultinlossofcropsandlivestock.

3.2 Proposed Action

TheCityofLaFeriaproposestoconstructastormwaterpumpstation(SWPS)nearoneoftheIBWCdrainagechannelgateslocatedatthesouthwestendofLaFeriaReservoirtoallowtheCitytopumpstormwaterovertheGate458structureintotheArroyoColorado(Latitude:26.12781N;Longitude:‐97.83966W).TheproposedpumpstationsiteissouthwestoftheCityofLaFeriaandadjacenttothesouthwesterncorneroftheLaFeriaReservoir.Agriculturalareaswithhomesteadslienearthepumpstationsite.Theproposedprojectsiteissituated2.8milessoutheastfromU.S.Highway83andCameronCountyRoad506.TheproposedprojectsiteisoutsideofCitylimitsbutwithinthe5‐mileextraterritorialjurisdiction(ETJ)oftheCityofLaFeria.AccordingtotheCityofLaFeriaPlanningandCommunityDepartment(2012),theprojectsiteisintheETJandisunclassifiedandnoalternativelanduseisplanned.TheproposedprojectsiteisatthesouthendoftheleveewallsofdrainagechannelAN‐49wheretheyjointheIBWCleveejustnorthoftheArroyoColorado.

ConstructionoftheSWPSwouldimprovedrainageduringstormeventsandreducefloodinginsouthwesternLaFeria.Theproposedpumpstationwouldbelocatedwithinanexisting,developedCityofLaFeriadrainageeasementright‐of‐waynorthofandadjacenttotheArroyoColorado.Theproposedpumpstationwouldbeasingle‐storystructurecontainingtwo50cubicfeetpersecondpumpsandassociatedappurtenancestoliftwateroverthegatestructureandthroughthelevee(Figure3).ThechannelhasthecapacitytoaccommodatethisadditionalflowandtheIBWCwouldallowthisquantityoffloodwatertobepumpedintothelowerchannelbelowtheleveeandflowtotheArroyoColorado.Theproposedpumpstationsitewaspreviouslydisturbedwhenthechannelwasconstructedandwouldbetemporarilydisturbedduringconstructionofthepumpstationfacility.TheproposedSWPSismappedalongthewesternLaFeriaReservoirleveeandtheOrangeGrove(AN‐49)irrigationcanalthataredesignatedasFEMA100‐yearFloodplainZonesAandAH,respectively.AsiteplanfortheproposedstormwaterpumpstationisprovidedinFigure4.


3‐3

Figure 3 AN‐49 Conceptual Plan


3‐4

Figure 4 Proposed Storm Water Pump Station Site Plan (Source: City of La Feria, Engineering Report 2012)


3‐5

3.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed Duringthealternativesdevelopmentprocess,alternativeswereconsideredbuteliminatedfromdetailedstudy.Thesealternativesandtheirreasonsforeliminationaredescribedinthissection.

Duringselectionoftheproposedsite,analternativelocationoftheproposedSWPSwasconsideredbuteliminated.ThealternativelocationisnearthesouthwestcornerofLaFeriaReservoir,justastheproposedsite,butontheeastsideofthedrainagechannellevee(Figure5).TheeastsideoftheAN‐49drainagechannelleveehasmorepotentialforadverseimpactsonthelevee,providesasmallerlandarea,andprovideslessconvenientaccessforconstructionandmaintenance.Inaddition,duringconstruction,aSWPSlocatedontheeastsideoftheleveecouldcompromisethestructuralintegrityoftheleveewallfortheLaFeriaReservoirthroughvibrationsandlanddisturbance.Thewestbankisthepreferredlocationbecauseitaffordsmorespaceandismoreeasilyaccessibleformaintenanceandconstruction.

Figure 5 Alternative Location Map (Google Earth Pro, 2012)

4‐1

Section 4

Affected Environment and Potential Impacts

Thissectiondescribestheenvironmentthatmaybeaffectedbytheproposedactionoranyoftheotheralternativesconsidered.

4.1 Physical Resources 4.1.1 Geology and Soils TheprojectareaisunderlainbyalluviumconsistingmostlyofmudsandsedimentsdepositedbytheRioGrande.ThedepositsunderlyingthisareaareofHoloceneorigin.

TheLowerRioGrandeValleyregionischaracterizedbyitsunconsolidatedsoilsubstrate.ThethreesoiltypespresentwithintheprojectareaareclayandclayloamsformedintheDeltaplains:Harlingenclay(HA),Hidalgosandyclayloam(HO),andRaymondvilleclayloam(RE).Table1listspropertiesofthesesoiltypes.Noneofthesoiltypespresentarehydricsoils(associatedwithwetlands).

Table 1 Properties of Soil in Project Area

Parameters Harlingen Clay (HA) Hidalgo sandy clay loam

(HO)

Raymondville clay loam

(RE)

Depth More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches

Drainage Moderately well drained Well drained Moderately well drained

Permeability Very low to moderately

low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Moderately high to high

(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)

Moderately low to

moderately high (0.06 to

0.20 in/hr)

Parent Material Formed in calcareous

clayey alluvium

Formed in calcareous

loamy alluvium

Formed in calcareous

clayey alluvium

Slope 0‐1% 0‐1% 0‐1%

Depth to Water Table More than 80 inches More than 80 inches More than 80 inches

Hydric No No No

Noimpactsareanticipatedunderthenoactionalternative,asnolanddisturbancewouldtakeplace.Thecurrentsituationinwhichfloodingoccursandpersistshasnosignificantimpactongeologyorsoilsotherthanerosion.

Theproposedconstructionofastormwaterpumpstation(SWPS)wouldhaveminimalornoimpactongeologyorsoilswithintheprojectareaintheshort‐termorthelong‐term.Duringtheconstructionphase,soilwouldbedisturbedwhichmayresultinerosionthatiscontainedbybestmanagement

Section 4 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts

4‐2

practices(BMPs)controls.TheproposedprojectsiteisnotcurrentlyusedasfarmlandandisnotsubjecttotheFarmlandProtectionPolicyActbecauseitisalreadycommittedtowaterstorage(7CFR658.2(a)).

4.1.2 Air Quality TheCleanAirAct(CAA),asamendedin1977and1990,providesthebasisforregulatingairemissionsintheatmosphere.TheCAA,Title42,Section7407oftheU.S.CodestatesthatAirQualityControlRegions(AQCR)shallbedesignatedininterstateandmajorintrastateareasasdeemednecessaryorappropriatebyfederaladministratorforattainmentandmaintenanceoftheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS).TheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA)classifiesairqualitywithinanAQCRaccordingtowhethertheconcentrationsofcriteriaairpollutantsintheatmosphereexceedprimaryorsecondaryNAAQS.

TheproposedprojectareaislocatedinsouthwestCameronCounty.TheUSEPAdesignatesthisregionasbeinginattainmentofallNAAQS.TheUSEPAairqualitymonitoringstationslocatedintheregionhavenotdetectedlevelsofpollutantsexceedingairqualitystandards.

Noimpactsareanticipatedunderthenoactionalternative,becausenochangeswouldoccurtothelevelofairemissions.Airqualityimpactsfromconstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldbelocalizedandtemporary,occurringoveraperiodofafewmonthsneartheproposedprojectsite.Duringprojectconstructionactivities,measuressuchaswettingthesoil,limitingunnecessaryidlingofconstructionvehicles,maintainingvehiclesinproperworkingcondition,andshuttingdownconstructionmachinesthatarenotinusewouldbeemployedtominimizethetemporaryairqualityimpactsfromconstructionactivities.ThecompletedSWPSwouldnotbeasignificantsourceofairpollutants.

PostconstructionroutinemaintenancefortheproposedSWPSisexpectedtobemoderateandwouldnotresultinasignificantincreaseinemissionsofpollutants.TheCityofLaFeriaisalreadyconductingroutinemaintenanceontheproposedsiteandthelevelofmaintenanceisnotexpectedtoincreasesignificantlyiftheproposedactionisapproved.


4‐3

4.2 Water Resources 4.2.1 Water Quality SurfaceWaterSections303(d)and305(b)oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)requireallstatestoidentifyandcharacterizewatersthatdonotmeet,orarenotexpectedtomeet,waterqualitystandards.TheTexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ)istheregulatoryagencyresponsibleforcompliancewithwaterqualitystandardsinTexas.TheTCEQ’s2010IntegratedReportforCWASections303(d)and305(b)characterizesthequalityofTexassurfacewatersandidentifiesthosewatersthatdonotmeetwaterqualitystandardsonthe303(d)list,aninventoryofimpairedwaters.Streamsareclassifiedbysegmentwithintheirrespectivebasin.

TheArroyoColorado,theproposedproject’sreceivingwaterbody,comprisesSegments2201and2202.Bothsegmentshaveconsistentlyfailedtomeetwaterqualitystandards.TheproposedprojectareaiswithinSegment2202,thenon‐tidalsegmentoftheArroyoColoradolocatedupstreamofthePortofHarlingen.Segment2202isgovernedbyaTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programforlegacypollutantsandorganics.Legacypollutantsaresubstancesnowbannedthatremaininthewatershedanditsenvironmentbecauseoftheirlowrateofdecomposition.

Waterqualityissuesinthenon‐tidalSegment2202oftheArroyoColoradoincludehighconcentrationsoffecalbacteriaandnutrientssuchasnitrogenandphosphoruscompounds(ArroyoColoradoWatershedPartnership2007).Waterqualityanalysesidentifiedseveralpollutantsinfishtissue(e.g.DDE,mercury,andPCBs)atconcentrationswarrantingafishconsumptionadvisoryforthesegmentsupstreamfromthePortofHarlingen(TCEQ2003;TDSHS2008).

Underthenoactionalternative,therewouldbenoimpactstowaterquality.WaterqualityinSegments2201and2202wouldresemblecurrentconditions.

Theproposedprojectareaisnotlocatednearanyriversegmentdesignatedas“wildandscenic”.TheRioGrandeisdesignatedasa“wildandscenic”riverstartingattheCoahuila/ChihuahuastateborderinMexicoandextending191milesdownstreamtotheTerrellCounty/ValVerdeCountylineinTexasasshowninAppendixA‐1(InteragencyWildandScenicRiversCouncil2011).

Theproposedprojectcouldhaveshortterm,localizedimpactstosurfacewateroftheArroyoColorado,occurringoveraperiodofafewmonths.SWPSconstructionactivitiesareexpectedtoremovevegetationattheproposedprojectsite,whichcouldresultinsomesoilerosionduringheavyprecipitationevents.Bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)wouldbeusedtopreventsedimentorconstructiondebrisfrombeingtransportedintotheArroyoColorado,includingsiltfencesorothererosioncontroldevicessuchastemporaryerosionblanketsonslopes.InaccordancewiththerequiredTexasPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(TPDES)stormwaterpermit(TXR150000),specificmeasureswouldbeimplementedtominimizetheimpactsfromconstructionactivities.BMPswouldbedevelopedaspartofthesite‐specificstormwaterpollutionpreventionplan(SWPPP)andimplementedincompliancewithallfederal,state,andlocalregulations,includingSections402oftheCWA,rulesestablishedundertheTitle30TexasAdministrativeCodeandtheArroyoColoradoWatershedPartnershipProtectionPlan.TheproposedprojectwouldnotgenerateanyoftheTMDLwaterpollutantsofparticularconcerninSegment2202oftheArroyoColorado.


4‐4

GroundwaterThemajoraquiferunderlyingtheproposedprojectareaistheGulfCoastaquifer.Theaquiferconsistsofdiscontinuousbedsofclay,silt,sand,andgravelthatarehydrologicallyconnectedtoformalarge,leakyartesiansystem.TheGulfCoastaquiferspansacross54TexascountiesalongthecoastlinebeltoftheGulfofMexicofromLouisianatoMexico.WaterqualityissuesassociatedwiththeGulfCoastaquiferincludeland‐surfacesubsidence,increasedchloridecontentinthegroundwaterfromthesouthwesternportionoftheaquifer,andsaltwaterintrusionalongthecoast(TWDB2006).WaterqualityintheaquiferistypicallygoodtothenorthoftheSanAntonioRiverBasin,whiletothesouthtowardsMexicohighsalinityandalkalinityarecommon,makingmuchofthewaterunsuitableforirrigation(AshworthandHopkins1995).

AdatasearchontheTexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB)WaterInformationIntegrationandDissemination(WIID)SystemwasconductedonJune14,2012.TheWIIDSystemprovidesgroundwaterdataandsubmittedwaterwelldrillerreports.Withintheareaofconcern,nowaterwellswereidentifiedandnogroundwaterqualitydataisavailable.

Underthenoactionalternative,therewouldbenoimpactstogroundwaterqualityasnoconstructionwouldtakeplace.

ShorttermminorimpactstogroundwateroftheGulfCoastAquifermayoccurasaresultofactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedconstructionwork.SWPSconstructionactivitiesareexpectedtoremovevegetationasneededattheproposedprojectsite,whichcouldresultinminorsoilerosionduringheavyprecipitationevents.BMPs,asneeded,wouldbeusedtopreventsedimentorconstructiondebrisfrombeingtransportedtotheArroyoColoradoincludingtheuseofsiltfencesorothererosioncontroldevicessuchastemporaryerosionblankets.

4.2.2 Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct’s(NEPA)basicpolicyistoassurethatallbranchesofthefederalgovernmentgiveproperconsiderationtotheenvironmentpriortoundertakinganymajorfederalactionthatsignificantlyaffectstheenvironment.NEPArequiresfederalagenciestointegrateenvironmentalvaluesintothedecisionmakingprocessbyconsideringtheenvironmentalimpactofproposedactionsandreasonablealternativestothoseactions.TomeetNEPArequirements,federalagenciesprepareanEAthatprovidesevidenceandanalysisfordeterminingwhethertoprepareanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)oraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI).

NEPA,incombinationwiththeCleanWaterAct(CWA),establishesthatwherethequalityofawaterresourcesupportsadiverse,productive,andecologicallysoundhabitat,itisanationalpolicythatthosewaterswillbemaintainedandprotectedunlessthereiscompellingevidencethattodosowillcausesignificantnationaleconomicandnegativesocialimpacts.ThisnationalpolicyisfoundedontheCWAprimaryprinciplestorestoreandmaintainthechemical,physical,andbiologicalintegrityofthenation’ssurfaceandgroundwaters.Thepurposeofthispolicyistoprotectexistingandfuturewaterusesincludingassimilativecapacity,aquaticlifeprotection,humanhealthprotection,drinkingwatersupply,recreation,industrialuse,andhydropoweramongothers.

ThebasisoftheCWAwasoriginallyenactedin1948astheFederalWaterPollutionControlAct,andhasbeenamendednumeroustimes.The1972amendmentsestablishedanationalgoalthatwatersoftheU.S.shouldbe“fishableandswimmable”;thisgoalwastobeachievedbyeliminatingallpollutantdischargesintosurfacewatersoftheU.S.“WatersoftheUS”aredefinedintheCWA;however,recent


4‐5

U.S.SupremeCourtdecisionshaveledtoachangeinthedefinition.TheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA)andtheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)releasedproposedguidancetoclarifyprotectionofwatersundertheCWA.Partofthisguidanceisfocusedonprotectionofsmallerwatershedsthatfeedintolargerbasins,tokeepdownstreamwatersafefromupstreampollution.Thefocusisalsoontheprotectionofjurisdictionalwetlandsthatfilterpollutantsandstorewaterandprovidefloodprotection.TheguidancewillnotextendfederalprotectiontoanywatersnothistoricallyprotectedundertheSections10and404oftheCWAandwillbefullyconsistentwiththelaw,includingrecentSupremeCourtdecisions.

Section404oftheCWAestablishedaprogramtoregulatethedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialinto“watersoftheUS”andisjointlyadministeredbytheUSEPAandUSACE.USACEadministersday‐to‐dayprogramoperations,includingindividualpermitdecisionsandjurisdictionaldeterminations;developspolicyandguidance;andenforcesSection404provisions.USEPAdevelopsandinterpretsenvironmentalcriteriausedinevaluatingpermitapplications,identifiesactivitiesthatarerequiredorareexemptfrompermitting,reviewsandcommentsonindividualpermitapplications,enforcesSection404provisions,andhasauthoritytovetoUSACEpermitdecisions.

No“watersoftheUS”arepresentattheprojectsite;therefore,nocoordinationwouldbenecessarybetweentheCityofLaFeriaandtheUSACEregardingtheproposedproject.USACEGalvestonDistrictdoesnottakejurisdictionoftheAN‐49drainagechannel.TheIBWChasjurisdictionoverthefloodgate(Structure458)locatedonthenorthleveeoftheArroyoColoradoandcoordinationwiththeIBWCisnecessarytopumpstormwateroverthefloodgate.OnMarch27,2012,theIBWCissuedarevocablelicensetotheCityofLaFeriatoconstruct,operate,andmaintainadrainagestructureonthenorthleveeoftheArroyoColoradoFloodway.

TheU.S.FishandWildlifeService’s(USFWS)NationalWetlandsInventorymapfortheprojectarea,inAppendixA‐3,indicatestherearenowetlandsonthelanddirectlyaffectedbytheproposedaction.Fourwetlandsarelocatedwithin½to1mileoftheproposedprojectsitebutwouldnotbeimpactedbytheproposedSWPSfacility.Inaddition,basedontheNaturalResourcesConservationService’sonlineWebSoilSurveyforCameronCounty,noneoftheproposedprojectareacontainshydricsoils.

Underthenoactionalternative,noSWPSconstructionwouldoccurandtherewouldbenoimpacttothenearbywetlands.

Undertheproposedactionconstructionwouldoccurwithoutanyimpactonnearbywetlands.Inaddition,thelong‐termimpactsassociatedwithfacility’soperationandmaintenancewouldhavenoeffectonnearbywetlands.TheCityofLaFeriawillensurethatBMPsareimplementedtopreventerosionandsedimentationtosurrounding,nearbyoradjacentwetlands.ThisincludesequipmentstorageandstagingofconstructiontopreventerosionandsedimentationtoensurethatwetlandsarenotadverselyimpactedpertheCleanWaterActandExecutiveOrder11990.


4‐6

4.2.3 Floodplains TheFEMAfloodinsuranceratemap(FIRM)fortheprojectarea,aportionofCommunity‐PanelNumber4801010225B,datedSeptember15,1983,isincludedinAppendixA‐4.Aportionoftheproposedprojectareaisinthe100‐yearfloodplainoftheArroyoColoradoinfloodzoneAH.ZoneAHisanareawithinthe100‐yearfloodplainthatissubjecttoshallowfloodingwhereaveragedepthsarebetweenoneandthreefeet.

ExecutiveOrder11988requiresfederalagencies“toavoidtotheextentpossiblethelongandshorttermadverseimpactsassociatedwiththeoccupancyandmodificationofthefloodplainandtoavoiddirectorindirectsupportoffloodplaindevelopmentwhereverthereisapracticablealternative.”FEMA’simplementingregulationsat24CFRPart9includeaneightstepdecisionmakingprocessforcompliancewithExecutiveOrder11988.

ThiseightstepprocesshasbeencompletedfortheproposedSWPS,assummarizedbelow.

Thecurrentconditionswouldberetainedunderthe“noaction”alternative,maintainingthecurrentleveloffloodprotection.Thecurrentleveloffloodprotectionmaybeinsufficienttoprotectthecommunityandmayposeriskstopersonalsafetyandpropertyduringmajorstorms.

Step1Determineiftheproposedactionislocatedinthe100‐yearFloodplain

TheproposedSWPSwouldbelocatedwithinthe100‐yearfloodplainperFIMRpanel4801010225B,datedSeptember15,1983.

Step2Earlypublicnotice(preliminarynotice)

ApublicnoticeconcerningtheproposedSWPSwillbepublishedintheLaFeriaNewstogetherwiththenoticeofavailabilityofthedraftEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)document.TheLaFeriaNewsisthelocalgeneralcirculationnewspaperfortheLaFeriaarea,includingtheproposedSWPSsite.

Step3Identifyandevaluatealternativestolocatinginthe100‐yearfloodplain

TheproposedSWPSissitedinthe100‐yearfloodplainbecausefloodhazardsarelocatedwithinthefloodplain.Stormwaterbacksupandpoolsintheprojectarea,causingfloodhazards.TheSWPSneedstobelocatedwithinthefloodplaininordertoreceivefloodwaterbygravityandpumpitovertheleveeintotheArroyoColorado.RelocatingtheSWPSoutsideofthefloodplainisnotapracticablealternative.Thenoactionalternativewouldretainexistingconditionsinwhichfloodingduringstormeventscausesfloodhazards.Thenoactionalternativeisnotpracticablebecauseitdoesnotaddressthepurposeandneedfortheproject.

Step4Identifyimpactsofproposedactionassociatedwithoccupancyormodificationofthefloodplain

TheproposedSWPSwouldnotaffectthefunctionofthe100‐yearfloodplain.TheproposedSWPSwouldplaceasmallstructureinthe100‐yearfloodplain;however,thisstructurewouldnotimpedeflows.TheproposedSWPSwouldnotfacilitatedevelopmentwithinthe100‐yearfloodplain.Anynewdevelopmentwithinfloodplainswouldberequiredtocomplywithapplicableordinancesandbuildingcodes.


4‐7

TheproposedSWPSislocatedinthemapped100‐yearfloodplain,andisdesignedtobesubmergedandtofunctionduringfloodconditions.

Step5Designormodifytheproposedactiontominimizethreatstolifeandpropertyandpreservenaturalandbeneficialfloodplainvalues

Atthistime,preliminaryplanninghasbeencompletedfortheproposedSWPSandafloodstudyhasbeenprepared.TheproposedSWPSwouldbedesignedtomitigatefloodhazards,andwouldconsistoftwopumpsdesignedforthe25yearstormandcapableofpumping22,000gallonsperminute.ThelowestflooroftheSWPSwouldbedesignedatorabovethelevelofthebaseflood.TheCityofLaFeriamustcoordinatewiththelocalfloodplainadministratorandobtainrequiredpermitspriortoinitiatingwork.AllcoordinationpertainingtotheseactivitiesandapplicantcompliancewithanyconditionsshouldbedocumentedandcopiesforwardedtothestateandFEMAforinclusioninthepermanentprojectfiles

Step6Re‐evaluatetheproposedaction

Theproposedprojectwillnotexposeanysegmentofthepopulationtofloodhazardsbecauseitdoesnotincludeahousingcomponent,andwillnotfacilitatedevelopmentinthefloodplain.TheprojectwillnotaggravatethecurrentfloodhazardbecausetheproposedSWPSwouldnotimpedeorredirectfloodflowsinthefloodplain.Theproposedprojectwillnotdisruptfloodplaincharacteristicsbecauseitwillnotperceptiblychangewaterlevelsinthefloodplain,andwillnotappreciablyreducehabitatareasinthefloodplain.TheanalysiscompletedinSteps4and5providenobasisformodifyingthepreliminaryconclusionreachedinStep3.

Alternativesconsistingoflocatingtheprojectoutsideofthefloodplainortaking“noaction”arenotviable.

Step7Findingsandpublicexplanation(finalnotification)

Afterevaluatingalternatives,impactsandmitigationopportunities,itwasconcludedthattheproposedactionisthemostviablealternativeandthatthereisnopracticablealternativetolocatingaportionoftheprojectinthe100‐yearfloodplainoftheArroyoColoradobecause

Aportionofthecommunityisinthe100‐yearfloodplain,includingmajorroadsandevacuationroutes.

Theproposedpumpstationmustbelocatedwithinthe100‐yearfloodplainbecausethereisnopracticablealternativethatwouldmitigatefloodhazards.

A“noaction”planwouldnotresolveorimprovetheexistingfloodhazardsintheCityofLaFeria

TheCityofLaFeriamustprepareandprovidePublicNoticeissuedfor30daysofpublicavailabilitytoreviewtoproject’sdraftenvironmentalassessment(EA).AseparatePublicNoticemustbepublished15dayspriortothestartofconstructionanyfinaldecisionwhereproposedfloodplainorwetlandprojectistheonlypracticablealternative.

Step8Implementtheaction

ImplementationoftheproposedSWPSprojectwouldnotresultinanincreaseinfloodlevels;ratherimplementingthisprojectwouldalleviatefloodhazardsinthefloodplain.Moreover,theproposedprojectwillbeimplementedtoensurecompliancewithmitigationrequirementsin44CFR9.11


4‐8

4.3 Coastal Resources TheCoastalZoneManagementAct(CZMA)enablescoastalstatestodesignatestatecoastalzoneboundariesanddevelopcoastalmanagementprogramstoimproveprotectionofsensitiveshorelineresourcesandguidesustainableuseofcoastalareas.TheTexasCoastalManagementProgramisadministeredbyTexasGeneralLandOffice(GLO).TheTexasGLOdesignatedcoastalzoneboundaryrunsthroughtheeasternhalfofCameronCounty.

Theproposedprojectsiteislocated40milesinlandandwestofthenearestdesignatedcoastalresource,PadreIslandNationalSeashore.Theproposedsitelies12mileswestandinlandfromtheTexasCoastalManagementZoneboundarythatrunsjusteastofHarlingenasdesignatedbytheGLO.Thus,therewouldnotbeanypotentialimpacttocoastalresourcesfromtheproposedproject.Inaddition,thenoactionalternativewillnotresultinanyimpactstoTexascoastalresources.TheTexasCoastalZonemapispresentedinFigure6.


4‐9

Figure 6 Coastal Boundary Map


4‐10

4.4 Biological Resources VegetationandwildlifecommunitiesintheAreaofConcernandfederal‐listedthreatenedandendangeredspeciesresidingandthatoccurintheAreaofConcernarediscussedinthissection.

4.4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat TheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)of1973givestheU.S.FishandWildlife(USFWS)federallegislativeauthorityfortheprotectionofthreatenedandendangeredspecies.Thisprotectionincludesaprohibitionofdirecttake(e.g.,killing,harassing)andindirecttake(e.g.,destructionofhabitat).TheTexasParksandWildlife(TPWD)Codealsohasestablishedastateregulatorymandateforprotectionofstate‐listedT&Especiesbyprohibitingthetakeofsuchspecies.TheproposedprojectsiteislocatedinsouthwestCameronCounty,Texas.USFWSlists13animalandplantspeciesaspotentiallyoccurringinCameronCounty.Ofthese13listedspecies,9areendangered,3arethreatened,1isarecoveryspecies(delisted)(Table2).Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithindesignatedcriticalhabitatforanyspecies;nocriticalhabitatismappedwithin10milesoftheprojectsite(AppendixA‐5).TPWDalsolistsendangeredandthreatenedspeciesforTexascounties.TPWDlists15speciesasendangered,3speciesasthreatenedand2speciesasconcernedforCameronCounty.

Table 2 USFWS Endangered Species List (Source: USFWS Website)

Common Name Scientific Name Potential to Occur Federal Status

Birds

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Low Potential Recovery

Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Low PotentialEndangered

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Low Potential Threatened

Flowering Plants

South Texas Ambrosia Ambrosia Cherianthifolia No Potential Endangered

Texas Ayenia Ayenia limitaris No Potential Endangered

Mammals

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus No Potential Endangered

Gulf Coast Jaguarundi Herpailurus yagouaroundi cacomith

Low PotentialEndangered

Ocelot Leopardus pardalis Low Potential Endangered

Reptiles

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata No Potential Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea No Potential Endangered

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii No Potential Endangered

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas No Potential Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta No Potential Threatened

TheproposedlocationoftheSWPSdoesnotprovidehabitatforfederallylistedspecies.Vegetationatthesiteislimitedtoriparian‐typespeciesthatincludemesquite,retama,hackberry,cedarelm,andblackwillowastreespeciesandmimosa,pricklypear,desertyaupon,chilipiquin,andcenizoasshrub‐brushspecies.Grassesatthesiteareshoregrass,guineagrass,andbuffalograss(Figure7).Nomaturetreesorshrubswillneedtoberemovedbyprojectconstructionandanydisturbedsoilswillbeseeded


4‐11

andstabilized.ThesiteislocatedatthesouthendoftheleveewallsoftheCityofLaFeriadrainagechannelAN‐49nearthesouthwestcornerofLaFeriaReservoir,bothofwhicharelocatednorthoftheArroyoColoradowatershedboundary(IBWClevee).Thedrainagechannelismaintainedtocontrolwoodygrowthfrombeingestablishedtostabilizethechannelbanksandalsopreventimpedimentstostormwaterflow.Becauseofregularmaintenance,theAN‐49channeldoesnotsupportdensevegetation.Theproposedpumpstationwouldbeinasmall,singlestorystructurewhichwouldnotaffectmigratorybirds.TheSWPSbuildingwouldnotrequireanysecurityfencingotherthantheexistinggatethatcontrolssiteaccessandislocatedapproximately500feettothenorthwest.

Theprojectsitedoesnotprovidesuitablehabitatformostofthefederally‐listedspecieswithpotentialtooccurintheprojectarea.Vegetationalongthedrainagechannelmayprovideahabitatcorridorformovementoffederallyendangeredocelot(Leoparduspardalis)andGulfCoastjaguarundi(Herpailurusyagouaroundicacomitli).However,thisisunlikelybecauseofthelackofdensebrushandtheproximityofthesitetodevelopedareassuchasLaFeriaReservoirtothenortheastandtheagriculturallandstothenorthandnorthwestoftheprojectsite.

Jaguarandis(Figure8)areslightlylargerthanadomesticcatwithacoatofsolidcolor,generallyeitherrustybrownorcharcoalgray.Jaguarandiseatbirds,rabbitsandsmallrodents,huntingduringearlymorningandevening.Jaguarandisareendangeredbecausethedensebrushandshrublandsthatprovidehabitatfortheseanimalsarebeingclearedforfarmingortoaccommodateurbanresidentialgrowth(TPWD).

Figure 7 Vegetation at Proposed Project Site as Viewed from IBWC Levee


4‐12

Ocelots(Figure9)aremediumsizedspottedcatswithvariedbodycoloration.Akeyfeatureistheparallelstripesrunningdownthenapeoftheneck.Theunderpartsarewhitewithblackspots.The

ocelot’slongtailisringedormarkedwithdarkbarsontheuppersurface.Thebacksoftheroundedearsareblackwithawhitecentralspot.InTexas,ocelotsoccurinthedensethornyshrublandsoftheLowerRioGrandeValleyandRioGrandePlains.Conservationofremaininghabitat,andmaintenanceorcreationofbrushcorridorsconnectingthesehabitats,isnecessaryforsurvivaloftheocelotpopulationinTexas(TPWD).

Toprotectthejaguarundiandocelotandtheirhabitatsandbrushcorridor,thefollowingmitigationmeasureswouldbeimplementedfortheproposedactionproject:

Constructionactivitieswillbeconductedonlyduringdaylighthourstoavoidnoiseandlightingimpactsduringthenight.

Iftemporaryorpermanentlightingisused,itmustbedownshieldedanddirectedawayfromanybrushtractslocatedneartheproposedprojectsite.Lights,ifused,willbeoftheminimumwattageneededandthenumberoflightswillbeminimized.

Threatenedandendangeredspecieswouldnotbeimpactedbythenoactionalternative.

Figure 8 Jaguarundi (TPWD)

Figure 9 Ocelot (TPWD)


4‐13

Basedupontheinformationprovidedabove,FEMAhasdeterminedthattheproposedprojectwillhavenoeffecttothreatenedandendangeredspeciesorcriticalhabitat.Theproposedprojectisnotanticipatedtohaveanyeffectonanyotherstatelistedspecies.

4.4.2 Wildlife and Fish TheproposedprojectareafallswithintheWesternGulfCoastalPlaineco‐region,characterizedbyrelativelyflatcoastalplaintopographyandmainlygrasslandvegetation.Liveoaktreesareamajorcomponentoftheregionwhileothertreesandshrubscommonintheregionincludemesquite,huisache,Texaspersimmon,andspinyhackberry.Thisvegetationsupportswildlifesuchasdeer,raccoons,doveandmigratorybirds.

TheMagnuson‐StevensFisheryConservationandManagementActappliestosaltwaterfishincludinganadromousfish,whichswimupriversfromcoastalareastospawninfreshwater.TheActrequiresthatfederalagenciesidentifyandprotectimportantmarineandanadromousfishhabitat,referredtoasEssentialFishHabitat.EssentialFishHabitatisdefinedasthosewatersandsubstratenecessarytofishforspawning,breeding,feedingorgrowthtomaturity.TheTexasstripedbassisanadromous.Thenearestsignificantwaterwayorbodyofwater,ArroyoColorado,isjustover700feetsouthfromtheproposedpumpstationsite.However,anadromousfishcannotswimabovethePortofHarlingenhydraulicgatetomovefromtidalwatertofreshwatertospawninthenon‐tidalArroyoColorado.Thus,thePort’sgatestructurepreventstheanadromousfishfromreachingthesegmentofArroyoColoradoneartheprojectsite.

TheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA)decreesthatallmigratorybirdsandtheirparts(includingeggs,nests,andfeathers)arefullyprotected.NearlyallnativeNorthAmericanbirdspeciesareprotectedbytheMBTA.UndertheMBTA,taking,killing,orpossessingmigratorybirdsisunlawful.ProjectsthatarelikelytoresultinthetakingofbirdsprotectedundertheMBTAwouldrequiretheissuanceofincidentaltakepermitsfromtheUSFWS.Activitiesthatwouldrequiresuchapermitincludedestructionofmigratorybirdnestinghabitatduringthenestingseasonwheneggsoryoungbirdsarelikelytobepresent.UndertheMBTA,surveysarerequiredtodetermineifnestswillbedisturbedand,ifso,abufferareawithaspecifiedradiusaroundthenestwouldbeestablishedsothatnodisturbanceorintrusionwouldbealloweduntiltheyounghadfledgeandleftthenest.Ifnototherwisespecifiedinthepermit,thesizeofthebufferareawouldvarydependingonspeciesandlocalconditions(e.g.,presenceofbusyroads),andwouldbebasedontheprofessionaljudgmentofamonitoringbiologist.

Theproposedprojectsiteismaintainedtocontrolwoodygrowthfrombeingestablishedtostabilizethechannelbanksandalsopreventimpedimentstostormwaterflow.Becauseofregularmaintenance,theprojectsitedoesnotsupportdensevegetationthatmightserveastemporaryhabitatformigratorybirds

Underthenoactionalternative,therewouldbenoimpactstowildlifeandfish.

ImplementationoftheproposedactionwouldnotimpactEssentialFishHabitatasnoneexistsattheprojectsite.FEMAdoesnotanticipateatakeofmigratorybirdsbasedonthehabitatthatisavailableattheprojectsite.


4‐14

4.5 Cultural Resources Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,asamended,requiresfederalagencies“totakeintoaccount”the“effect”thatanundertakingwouldhaveonhistoricproperties.HistoricpropertiesarethoseincludedinoreligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP)andmayincludearcheologicalsites,buildings,structures,sites,objects,anddistricts.InaccordancewiththeAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservationregulationspertainingtotheprotectionofhistoricproperties(36CFR800.4),federalagenciesarerequiredtoidentifyandevaluatehistoricresourcesforNRHPeligibilityandassesstheeffectsthattheundertakingwouldhaveonhistoricproperties.

Toassessthepotentialforintact,significantculturalresourceswithintheAreaofPotentialEffect(APE)oftheproposedSWPSproject,CDMSmithconductedanarchivalreviewoftheproposedundertaking.TheAPEfortheSWPSincludestheareathatwillbeimmediatelydisturbedbytheconstruction,whichamountstoapproximately.3acres.TheproposedprojectsitewaspreviouslydisturbedwhentheAN‐49channelwasoriginallyconstructed.ArchivalresearchconductedviatheTexasHistoricalCommission’s(THC)TexasArcheologicalSitesAtlas(Atlas)websiteindicatedthatnopreviouslyrecordedarcheologicalsiteshavebeenrecordedwithintheAPE.AccordingtotheAtlas,CameronCountyhas351registeredhistoricsites;however,nohistoricsitesarelocatedwithin500feetoftheproposedprojectsite.ATHCmapoftheprojectvicinityislocatedinAppendixA‐6.NoregisteredAmericanIndian,NativeHawaiianorNativeAlaskanculturalorreligioussitesarelocatedonorneartheproposedprojectsite.TheKickapooTraditionalTribeofTexasatEaglePassistheclosestofthethreefederally‐recognizedIndiantribesinTexas.EaglePassislocatedabout240milesfromLaFeria.

CoordinationwiththeStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO),whichishousedattheTHC,wasinitiatedvialetteronMay26,2011.OnJuly6,2011,theSHPOconcludedthattheprojectwouldnotaffecthistoricpropertiesandthattheprojectcouldproceedasplanned(AppendixA‐8).

Theno‐actionalternativewouldresultinnoculturalresources,includinghistoricproperties,beingaffected.

BasedonarchivalresearchandcorrespondencewiththeSHPO,FEMAhasmadethedeterminationthattheproposedprojectwillhavenoimpacttohistoricproperties.Intheeventthatarcheologicaldeposits,includinganyNativeAmericanpottery,stonetools,bones,orhumanremains,areuncovered,theprojectshallbehaltedandtheapplicantshallstopallworkimmediatelyinthevicinityofthediscoveryandtakeallreasonablemeasurestoavoidorminimizeharmtothefinds.AllarcheologicalfindingswillbesecuredbytheCityofLaFeria,andaccesstothesensitiveareawillberestrictedbytheCityofLaFeria.TheApplicantwillinformFEMAimmediately,andFEMAwillconsultwiththeSHPO.WorkinsensitiveareasshallnotresumeuntilconsultationiscompletedanduntilFEMAdeterminesthattheappropriatemeasureshavebeentakentoensurecompleteprojectcompliancewiththeNHPAanditsimplementingregulations.


4‐15

4.6 Socioeconomic Resources ThesocioeconomicresourcesintheprojectareaandCameronCountyarediscussedbelow.

4.6.1 Environmental Justice OnFebruary11,1994,PresidentClintonissuedExecutiveOrder12898,“FederalActionstoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulationsandLow‐IncomePopulations”,providingthat“eachFederalagencymakeachievingenvironmentaljusticepartofitsmissionbyidentifyingandaddressing,asappropriate,disproportionatelyhighandadversehumanhealthandenvironmentaleffectsofitsprograms,policies,andactivitiesonminoritypopulationsandlowincomepopulations.”Inanaccompanyingmemorandumtoheadsofdepartments,thePresidentspecificallyrecognizedtheimportanceofproceduresunderNEPAforidentifyingandaddressingenvironmentaljusticeconcerns,statingthat“eachFederalagencyshallanalyzetheenvironmentaleffects,includinghumanhealth,economicandsocialeffects,ofFederalactions,includingeffectsonminoritycommunitiesandlow‐incomecommunities,whensuchanalysisisrequiredby[NEPA].”

Theprojectarea(CensusTract119.02,BlockGroup1)hasahighpercentageofminorityresidents.Theimmediateprojectareaalsohasrelativelylowmedianincomesandrelativelyhighpovertyrates,butdoesnotqualifyaslowincomepopulation(Table3).ThepopulationoftheBlockGroupis72percentHispanicorLatinoascomparedwith62.4percentforTexasasawhole(Table4).Accordingtothe2010U.S.Census,themedianhouseholdincomeforCameronCountyis$33,770.Individualswithincomesbelowpovertylevelcomprise34.7percentofthepopulationofCameronCounty.

ResidentsinthevicinityoftheproposedprojectareanenvironmentaljusticepopulationforpurposesofExecutiveOrder12898.Theproposedprojectwouldhavenosignificantenvironmentalimpacts,however,andwouldthereforenothaveasignificantdisproportionateadverseeffectonthesurroundingcommunity.Thesepopulationsareexpectedtobenefitbythereductioninfloodriskthatwillresultfromimplementationoftheproposedaction.

Underthenoactionalternative,floodingwouldremainathreattopopulationsinsouthwesternLaFeriawhichcouldresultinlossofutilityservice,damagetolocalstreetsandhomes,andcompromisedevacuationonU.S.Highway83.


4‐16

Table 3 Demographic Data for Project Area (Source: U.S. Census)

Parameter

Census Tract 119.02, Block Group 1 (project site)

Census tract

119.02

City of La Feria (northeast of project site)

Cameron

County

State of Texas

Total Population 1,574 3,623 6,115 335,227 20,851,820

Total Minority Population1

1,150 2,456 4,804 286,548

9,918,507

Minority Percentage

73.1% 67.8% 78.6% 85.5%

47.6%

Percentage of population below poverty level

33.9%

24.2% 29.2% 33.1%

15.4%

Median household income in 1999

$19,917$28,455 $24,660 $26,155

$39,927

Median family income in 1999

$24,875$32,095 $28,832 $27,853

$45,861

1Persons not “white alone” pulls Hispanic or Latino persons who are “white alone”


4‐17

Table 4 Population Data (Source: U.S. Census)

Ethnic Composition Tract 119.02, Block Group 1

Percentage State of Texas Percentage

White 1,315 83.5 17,701,552 70.4

Black 0 0 2,979,598 11.8

Asian 2 0.1 964,596 3.8

American Indian 9 0.5 170,972 <1

Native Hawaiian 1 0.1 21,656 <1

Some other race alone

2 0.1 9,460,921 37.6

Hispanic or Latino 1,131 72 15,684,640 62.4

Total Population 1,574 25,145,561

4.6.2 Hazardous Material HazardousmaterialsarethosesubstancesdefinedbytheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,andLiabilityAct(CERCLA),asamendedbytheSuperfundAmendmentsandReauthorizationAct(SARA),andtheToxicSubstancesControlAct(TSCA).TheSolidWasteDisposalAct(SWDA)asamendedbytheResourceConservationandRecoveryAct(RCRA),whichwasfurtheramendedbytheHazardousandSolidWasteAmendments,defineshazardouswastes.Ingeneral,bothhazardousmaterialsandhazardouswastesincludesubstancesthat,becauseoftheirquantity,concentration,physical,chemical,orinfectiouscharacteristics,maypresentsubstantialdangertopublichealthorwelfareortotheenvironmentwhenreleasedorotherwiseimproperlymanaged.

NoimpactsfromwastestorageanddisposalsitesareanticipatedbecausenoSuperfundsites,toxicreleaseinventorysites,industrialwaterdischargers,hazardouswastefacilitiesorsites,ormulti‐activitysitesarelocatedwithinonemileoftheproposedprojectsite(USEPA2012e).Thereisnoevidenceofhazardoussubstancesorwastesgenerated,treatedordisposedintheproposedproject’svicinity(AppendixA‐7)andasshownbyUSEPAEnviroFactsmapping.Unusableequipment,debrisandmaterialshallbedisposedofinanapprovedmannerandlocation.Intheeventsignificantitems(orevidencethereof)arediscoveredduringimplementationoftheproject,applicantshallhandle,manage,anddisposeofpetroleumproducts,hazardousmaterialsandtoxicwasteinaccordancetotherequirementsandtothesatisfactionofthegoverninglocal,stateandfederalagencies.

Therewouldbenoimpactsregardinghazardousmaterialsunderthenoactionalternativeasnogroundwouldbedisturbed.

4.6.3 Noise Noisewouldbegeneratedbyvehiclesandequipmentinvolvedinsiteclearingandgrading,foundationpreparation,facilityconstruction,pipeinstallation,andprojectcompletionwork.Noisefromconstructionactivitieswouldbelimitedtodaytimehours.Therearenohomes,commercialestablishments,schools,daycarefacilities,hospitals,nursinghomes,churches,orrecreationalareaswithin1,500feetoftheproposedSWPSsite.

Theincreasednoiselevelsfromproposedconstructionatthesitearenotexpectedtocauseanyadverseimpactsonthesurroundingenvironment.Underthenoactionalternative,ambientnoiselevelswouldbeunchanged.


4‐18

4.6.4 Traffic Heavyconstructionequipmentwouldbedriventotheconstructionsitefromnearbylocationsusinglocalhighwaysandstreets.Atemporaryincreaseinuseoftheaccessroadstothesitewouldoccurduringthemobilizationandplacementofequipmentintheproposedstagingareas.Theincreaseintrafficwouldnotbesignificant.Existingconditionswouldremainthesameunderthenoactionalternative.

4.6.5 Public Services and Utilities PublicservicesandutilitiesfortheprojectareaareprovidedbytheCityofLaFeriaunderits5‐mileextraterritorialjurisdiction.Theproposedprojectwouldnothaveanynegativeimpactsonpublicservicesandutilities.TheproposedSWPSsiteliesdirectlywestofthesouthwestcornerofLaFeriaReservoir,thedrinkingwatersourcefortheCityanditsWaterandWastewaterServicesUtility.Existingconditionswouldremainthesameunderthenoactionalternative.

4.6.6 Public Health and Safety Theproposedprojectwouldhaveapositiveimpactonpublichealthandsafetybymitigatingthecurrentfloodhazardthathasbeenexperiencedneartheproposedprojectarea.Existingconditionswouldremainthesameunderthenoactionalternativeandfloodingwouldremainasathreattothecommunity.


4‐19

4.7 Summary Table Table 5 Impacts on Affected Environment

Affected Environmental Resource Area

Impacts Agency

Coordination/Permits Mitigation/BMPs

Geology & Soils Minimal short‐term impact to soils.

None Erosion BMPs as implemented through SWPPP.

Air Quality

Temporary air emissions from construction machines

None

Contractors are required to water down construction areas as needed in order to mitigate excess dust. Vehicle running times on site will be kept to a minimum and engines will be properly maintained.

Water Quality Short‐term storm water impacts during construction

TCEQ

A SWPPP will be prepared and implemented, and a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be posted at the construction site. Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be installed, monitored and maintained during construction to minimize any detrimental effects to water quality during construction. The City of La Feria will obtain a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) storm water permit from TCEQ before the start of construction and comply with all permit conditions.

Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands

No impact None

The City of La Feria will ensure that BMPs are implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation to surrounding, nearby or adjacent wetlands. This includes equipment storage and staging of construction to prevent erosion and sedimentation to ensure that wetlands are not adversely impacted per the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990.

USACE N/A

Floodplains No significant impact Local Floodplain Administrator

The City of La Feria must coordinate with the local floodplain administrator and obtain required permits prior to initiating work. All coordination pertaining to these activities and applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files. The City of La Feria must prepare and provide Public Notice issued 15 days prior to the start of construction of any final decision where proposed floodplain or wetland project is the only practicable alternative.

IBWC

IBWC Issued License No. LSF/G‐1810 on March 27, 2012 which grants the City ability to construct, operate, and maintain improvements on the north levee of the Arroyo Colorado Floodway (Appendix A‐8)

Coastal Resources No impact Texas GLO N/A

Threatened & Endangered Species/Critical

No effect on listed species or critical habitat.

TPWD Construction activities will be conducted only during daylight hours to avoid noise and lighting impacts during the night. If


4‐20

Habitat temporary or permanent lighting is used, it must be down shielded and directed away from any brush tracts located near the proposed project site. Lights, if used, will be of the minimum wattage needed and the number of lights will be minimized.

Wildlife & Fish No impact None

No work will occur during the migratory bird nesting season. Preconstruction bird surveys will be conducted. Nest protection buffers will be implemented, if needed.

Cultural Resources No impact THC

In the event that archeological deposits, including any Native American pottery, stone tools, bones, or human remains, are uncovered, the project shall be halted and the applicant shall stop all work immediately in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. All archeological findings will be secured by the City of La Feria, and access to the sensitive area will be restricted by the City of La Feria. The Applicant will inform FEMA immediately, and FEMA will consult with the SHPO. Work in sensitive areas shall not resume until consultation is completed and FEMA determines that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure complete project compliance with the NHPA and its implementing regulations.

Environmental Justice

Beneficial impact to all populations.

None N/A

Hazardous Material

No impact None

Unusable equipment, debris and material shall be disposed of in an approved manner and location. In the event that significant items (or evidence thereof) are discovered during implementation of the project, applicant shall handle, manage, and dispose of petroleum products, hazardous materials and toxic waste in accordance to requirements and to the satisfaction of the governing local, state and federal agencies.

Noise Minor short‐term impact during construction

None

Construction activities will take place during normal business hours. Equipment and machinery used at the proposed project site will meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations.

Traffic Slight impact during construction

None Construction would be during day time only

Public Service & Utilities

No impact None N/A

Public Health & Safety

Long‐term beneficial impact.

None N/A

5‐1

Section 5

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulativeimpactscanbedefinedastheimpactsofaproposedactionwhencombinedwithimpactsofpast,present,orreasonableforeseeablefutureactionsundertakenbyanyagencyorperson.ThissectionofthedraftEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)addressesthepotentialcumulativeimpactsassociatedwiththeimplementationoftheproposedconstructionofastormwaterpumpstation.

The“noaction”alternativewillnotmitigatefloodingofU.S.Highway83.Giventhenatureoffloodingandtheprolongedtimethatpropertyandroadwaysarefloodedfollowingextremerainevents,takingnoactionisnotaviableoptionandwillnotprovidehazardmitigation.

TheprimarypurposeoftheproposedprojectistoreducepotentialfutureflooddamagetoexistingstructuresinthesouthwesternportionoftheCityofLaFeria.Theprojectisnotintendedtoprovideforincreaseddevelopmentpotentialinthearea.Therefore,itisnotexpectedthatthisprojectwillleadtoothersignificantsecondaryimpacts.Theproposedprojectwouldleadtoanetlongtermincreaseinfloodplaincapacity.Therefore,thecumulativeeffectstofloodplainswouldbepositiveandbeneficialtofloodstorageanddamagereductioninthevicinityoftheprojectarea.Noothercumulativeeffectstoenvironmentalresourcesbeyondshorttermconstructionrelatedeffectsandlongtermbeneficialeffectsareanticipated.Theproposedprojectdoesnothaveimpactsthatareofsuchsignificanceastoaddmateriallytocumulativeimpactsintheregion.

Atthistime,totheCity’sknowledge,noothercurrentorplannedwatercontrolprojectsarebeingconstructedorplannedintheprojectvicinity.

6‐1

Section 6

Agency Coordination, Public Involvement and

Permits

6.1 Agency Coordination Table 6 Agency Coordination

AGENCY Coordination

Letter

Concurrence

Letter

Comment

Letter

Contact Information Comments

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

May 24, 2011

CESWG‐CO‐RE

USACE Galveston Dist. PO Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553

Texas General Land Office

May 26, 2011

Ms. Tammy S. Brooks

Coastal Coordination Council Secretary

Consistency Review Coordinator

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, TX 78711

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD)

May 26, 2011

Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Wildlife Division

4200 Smith School Rd.

Austin, TX 78744

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Texas Historical Commission (THC)

May 26, 2011

July 7, 2011 Mr. Mark Wolfe, Executive Director & SHPO PO Box 12276 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

May 26, 2011

June 2, 2011 Chief Engineer’s Office TCEQ (MC 168)

PO Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711

No significant long term environmental impacts anticipated from the SWPS project. TCEQ recommended the City take steps to ensure BMPs are utilized to control runoff from construction sites.

Section 6 Agency Coordination, Public Involvement and Permits

6‐2

AGENCY Coordination

Letter

Concurrence

Letter

Comment

Letter

Contact Information Comments

International

Boundary &

Water

Commission

(IBWC) – U.S.

Section

April 18, 2011

April 13, 2012

IBWC –U.S. Section Environmental Review

4171 N. Mesa St., Suite C‐100 El Paso. TX 79902‐1441

IBWC Issued License No. LSF/G‐1810 on March 27, 2012 which grants the City ability to construct, operate, and maintain improvements on the north levee of the Arroyo Colorado Floodway (Appendix A‐8)

6.2 Public Participation Thepublicinformationprocessfortheproposedstormwaterpumpstation(SWPS)projecthasinvolvedone30‐dayPublicNoticethatwasplacedintheHarlingenValleyMorningStar,thelocalgeneralcirculationnewspaperthatcoversLaFeriaandtheprojectarea.Thepublicnotice,publishedonMay23,2009,statedthatinformationontheproposedSWPSwasavailableattheLaFeriaCityHalllocatedat115CommercialStreet(AppendixA‐8).ACityofLaFeriaPublicCommissionMeetingwasheldonMay26,2009whentheproposedprojectwasapprovedbyResolution.Thenoticerequestedthepublictosubmitwrittencomments,fororagainst,sothattheycouldbeconsideredandevaluated.NosubstantivepubliccommentswerepresentedbyLaFeriacitizens.

AnotherpublicnoticewillbereleasedwhentheDraftEnvironmentalAssessmentiscomplete.ANoticeofAvailabilityoftheDraftEnvironmentalAssessmentwillbepublishedintheLaFeriaNewsandonFEMA’swebsite(<http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/ea‐region6.shtm>)requestingpubliccomments.Additionally,theDraftEAwillbemadeavailableforreviewforaperiodof30daysataphysicallocationintheprojectarea.FEMAwillconsiderandrespondtoallpubliccommentsintheFinalEA.Ifnosubstantivecommentsarereceived,theDraftEAwillbecomefinalandaFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI)willbeissuedfortheproject.Atthistime,apublicmeetingisnotplannedaspartoftheproposedSWPSprojectbecauseitisnotcontroversial.

6.3 Permits PermitsrequiredforthisproposedSWPSprojectprimarilyaddressthetemporaryconcernsassociatedwithconstruction.OnerequiredpermitisaTexasPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(TPDES)constructionstormwatergeneralpermitunderTXR150000.TheTPDESTXR150000constructiongeneralpermitwillrequirethedevelopmentofasite‐specificstormwaterpollutionpreventionplan(SWPPP)thatmustbekeptonsiteandmaintainedwithanyupdatessubmittedduringthecourseoftheproject.TheSWPPPidentifiesthestormwaterbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)thatwillbeimplementedandsiteerosioncontrolsdesignedtoprotecttheAN‐49drainagechannelandtheArroyoColoradoreceivingwater.Inaddition,theCityofLaFeriawillcontactthelocalfloodplainadministratorandobtainandcomplywithanypermitsthatmayberequiredforconstructioninthefloodplain.NootherstateorfederalpermitsappeartobenecessarytoconstructtheSWPSfacility.Localpermitsarenotneededbecausetheproposedlocationisnotwithincitylimits.

7‐1

Section 7

References

ArroyoColoradoWatershedPartnership,2007,AWatershedProtectionPlanfortheArroyoColoradoPhaseI,http://arroyocolorado.org/watershed‐protection‐plan/,accessedJune14,2012.

BureauofEconomicGeology,TheUniversityofTexasatAustin,1976,GeologicAtlasofTexas,

McAllen‐BrownsvilleSheet.EspeyConsultants,Inc,2011,CityofLaFeriaFloodProtectionPlan,Internetsite:

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_rpts/0904830949_laFeria.pdf,accessedJune18,2012.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2012,WhatistheHazardMitigationGrantProgram,

Internetsite:http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=60756,accessedJune7,2012.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2010,PresidentDeclaresMajorDisasterforTexas,

Internetsite:http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=52303,accessedJune7,2012.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2008a,FloodNeighborhoodinTexas.Internetsite:

http://www.fema.gov/photolibrary/photo_details.do;jsessionid=58BD4ADC124BF9657F2D611FD585C8CD.WorkerPublic3?id=37485,accessedJune7,2012.

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2008b,PresidentDeclaresMajorDisasterforTexas,

Internetsite:http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=45216,accessedJune7,2012.FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),1983,FloodInsuranceRateMap,CameronCounty,

TexasPanel225of400,Community‐PanelNumber4801010225BInteragencyWildandScenicRiversCouncil,2011,DesignatedWild&ScenicRivers,Internetsite:

http://www.rivers.gov/wsr‐rio‐grande‐texas.html,accessedJune14,2012.InternationalBoundaryandWaterCommission(IBWC),2010,FinalEnvironmentalAssessment:

ImprovementstotheArroyoColoradoSouthLevee,HidalgoandCameronCounties,Texas,Internetsite:http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/EA‐FONSI_ACS_11‐26‐10.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.

NationalWeatherService,2009,HurricaneDolly–July24,2008ImpactsontheTexasCoastalBend&

RioGrandePlains.Internetsite:http://www.srh.noaa.gov/crp/?n=hurricane‐dolly,accessedJune14,2012.

Section 7 References

7‐2

NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA),2006,FinalEvaluationFindingsTexasCoastalManagementProgram,Internetsite:http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/TexasCMP2007.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ),2012,2010TexasIntegratedReportforClean

WaterActSections305(b)and303(d),Internetsite:http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/assessment/10twqi/10twqi,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ),2011,ArroyoColorado:ATMDLProjectfor

LegacyPollutantsandOrganics,Internetsite:http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/07‐arroyoleg.html,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ),2006,PollutantReductionPlanfortheArroyo

ColoradoSegments2201and2202Hidalgo,Cameron,andWillacyCounties,Internetsite:http://m.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/water/tmdl/13arroyo/13‐arroyo_prp_july2006.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ),2003,TwelveTotalMaximumDailyLoadsfor

LegacyPollutantsintheArroyoColoradoAboveTidalandtheDonnaReservoirandCanalSystem,Internetsite:http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/water/tmdl/07arroyoleg/07‐arroyo_legacy_tmdl.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasDepartmentofStateHealthServices(TDSHS),2008,FishConsumptionAdvisories:Advisory34,

Advisory19,Advisory6,Advisory5,Internetsite:http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/survey.shtm,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasHistoricalCommission(THC),Section106,Internetsite:

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/tribal/section.shtml,accessedJune14,2012.TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD),ManagementGuidelinesfortheJaguarundiandOcelot,

Internetsite:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0013_jaguarundi_ocelot_mgmt.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD),NongameandRareSpeciesProgram:Federal/State

ThreatenedandEndangeredSpecies,Internetsite:http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/texas_rare_species/listed_species/,accessedJune14,2012.

TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD),Ocelot,Internetsite:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0013_ocelot.pdf,accessedJune14,2012.


7‐3

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB),2006a,MajorAquifersofTexas,Internetsite:http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/mapping/doc/maps/aqu_maj_8x11.pdf,accessedJune13,2012.

TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB),2006b,MinorAquifersofTexas,Internetsite:

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/mapping/doc/maps/aqu_min_8x11.pdf,accessedJune13,2012.TexasWaterDevelopmentBoard(TWDB),WIIDSystem:WaterInformationIntegration&

Dissemination,Internetsite:http://wiid.twdb.texas.gov/,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.CensusBureau,2010a,2010CensusInteractivePopulationSearch,Internetsite:

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=48,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.CensusBureau,2010b,AmericanFactFinder,Internetsite:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.CensusBureau,2010c,CameronCounty,TexasQuickLinks,Internetsite:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48061lk.html,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.CensusBureau,2010d,InteractivePopulationMap,Internetsite:

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.DepartmentofAgricultureNaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS),2012,WebSoil

Survey(WSS),Internetsite:http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov,accessedJune13,2012.

U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity,2004,EnvironmentalAssessmentPortIsabel/BrownsvilleBorderPatrolStation,Internetsite:http://ww3.swg.usace.army.mil/pe‐p/Brownsville/PIB_BPS_Final_EA.pdf,accessedJune13,2012.

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012a,CurrentlyDesignatedNonattainmentAreasfor

AllCriteriaPollutants,Internetsite:http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#TEXAS,accessedJune14,2012.

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012b,AirData:AirQualityIndexReport,Internet

site:http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012c,NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards

(NAAQS),Internetsite:http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012d,CleanWaterAct,Section404,Internetsite:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm,accessedJune14,2012.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012e,Envirofacts,Internetsite:

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/,accessedJune18,2012.


7‐4

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA),2012f,CleanWaterActJurisdictionFollowingtheU.S.SupremeCourt’sDecisioninRapanosv.UnitedStatesandCarabellv.UnitedStates,Internetsite:http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf.

U.S.Fish&WildlifeService,2012,NationalWetlandsInventory,Internetsite:

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html,accessedJune14,2012.

8‐1

Section 8

List of Preparers

GovernmentContributors:

KevinJaynes,CHMM,RegionalEnvironmentalOfficer,FEMA,Denton,Texas

DorothyWeir,EnvironmentalSpecialist,FEMA,Denton,Texas

ConnieDill,HMASpecialist,FEMA,DentonTexas

LocalSponsorContributors:

SunnyK.Phillip,CityManager,CityofLaFeria,Texas

DocumentPreparers:

RogerE.SchenkJr.,Principal,CDMSmith

DaphneRajenthiram,P.E.,EnvironmentalEngineer,CDMSmith

ErinMcAuley,M.S.,EnvironmentalPlanner,CDMSmith

F.MackRugg,EnvironmentalScientist,CDMSmith

JenniferM.Jones,EnvironmentalScientist,CDMSmith