Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas, Final Integrated Feasibility Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
U.S. Army Corps Galveston District of Engineers Southwestern Division Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas Coastal Storm Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Final Integrated Feasibility Report – Environmental Impact Statement May 2017 (This page left blank intentionally.) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GALVESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 1229 GALVESTON, TEXAS 77553-1229 Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas Coastal Storm Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Final Integrated Feasibility Report – Environmental Impact Statement May 2017 (This page left blank intentionally.) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District (USACE), under the authority of, a resolution from the Committee on Environmental and Public Works dated June 23, 2004, entitled “Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Study” proposes to reduce the risks of tropical storm surge impacts by constructing the new Orange 3 coastal storm risk management (CSRM) system in Orange County, and increasing the level of risk reduction and resiliency of the existing Port Arthur and Vicinity and Freeport and Vicinity Hurricane Flood Protection (HFP) systems in Jefferson and Brazoria Counties, Texas. The Orange 3 CSRM project would consist of a 26.7- mile long levee/floodwall system along the edge of the Sabine and Neches River floodplains from Orange to the vicinity of Orangefield, Texas. The Port Arthur and Freeport CSRM Projects would raise or reconstruct 11.6 miles and 18.2 miles of existing levees/floodwalls for each system respectively, replace vehicular closure structures, construct navigable surge gate structures, and increase resiliency by installing erosion protection. The Orange 3 project would result in the loss of 69.5 acres of forested wetlands and 203.0 acres of estuarine marsh, as well as functional impacts to 2,137.2 acres of estuarine marsh. These impacts would result in the loss of 43 average annual habitat units (AAHUs) for forested wetlands and 143 AAHUs for estuarine marsh. A mitigation plan is proposed that restores 453 acres of estuarine marsh and preserves 559.5 acres of forested wetlands in perpetuity, providing 263 AAHUs to fully compensate for these impacts. The total first cost of the project is estimated to be $3,248,607,000. This Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FIFR- EIS) was prepared as required by the National Environmental Policy Act to present an evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed project. The FIFR-EIS addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project on the human environment, as identified during the public interest review, including potential effects on life and safety, economic benefits, air, water and sediment quality, forested wetlands and coastal marsh, protected species, hazardous and toxic materials, historic properties, energy needs, and, in general, the welfare of the people. Public and agency comments received during the public comment period were addressed. The public and agency comments on the findings of the FIFR-EIS will be addressed in the Record of Decision. Comments on this FIFR-EIS must be postmarked by: June 26, 2017 Comments may be submitted by email at: [email protected] or at the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District Attention: Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas, Study P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (*NEPA Required) STUDY DESCRIPTION This is a Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FIFR-EIS) examining coastal storm risk management (CSRM) and ecosystem restoration (ER) problems and opportunities within six counties of the upper Texas coast (Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties). The study has identified and screened alternatives to address CSRM and ER problems, and is presenting a Recommended Plan. This FIFR-EIS has undergone public review, policy review, Agency Technical Review (ATR), and Independent External Peer Review (IEPR). Final public and agency comments on the findings of the FIFR-EIS will be addressed in the Record of Decision (ROD). STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this report is to present the final findings of the feasibility investigations and analyses conducted to determine if there is a Federal interest in potential CSRM and ER projects within the coastal areas of the six-county study area. The scope of the study was the subject of multiple vertical team meetings with Headquarters USACE (HQUSACE) in the early stages of formulation. This study is recognized as a critical effort that encompasses six counties (Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria) along 120 miles of the upper Texas coast (Figure ES-1). Multiple options for study scope were considered for this extensive geographic area. It became apparent as the study team identified alternatives, that a feasibility-level evaluation of all the potential alternatives in the entire six-county study area would be difficult to accomplish and maintain compliance with the 3x3x3 Rule. This rule applies to feasibility studies and requires completion within 3 years and under $3 million, unless an exemption is approved by HQUSACE. A Feasibility-level evaluation of all of the potential alternatives in the six-county study in three years introduced risk that was too high and not acceptable for decision making. An exemption request was approved in a CECW-SWD memorandum dated February 25, 2014. The approval was granted to pursue a scope for this study that would take 3.9 years and cost $4.4 million, and address only feasibility-level evaluation of CSRM projects in two of the three regions originally identified for the study (Sabine, Galveston, and Brazoria). The exemption approved evaluation of the Sabine region, focusing on Orange and Jefferson Counties, and the Brazoria region, focusing on the Freeport area in Brazoria County. Because of cost and complexity, the decision was made to include only a comprehensive assessment of potential CSRM projects in the Galveston region (Galveston, Harris, and Chambers Counties) and potential ER projects throughout the entire six- county study area. The comprehensive assessment is a listing of future studies that have high potential for recommending CSRM and ER projects with Federal interest. For example, one of the ES-1 Executive Summary ongoing studies, the USACE Coastal Texas CSRM and ER Feasibility Study is addressing issues in the Galveston Bay Region. Figure ES-1: Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Study Area PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The study area has seen several major historical surge events in the past 120 years. The most notable is the 1900 Storm, which inundated most of the island city of Galveston, Texas, and adjacent areas on the mainland. The storm was responsible for over 8,000 deaths and up to $30 million in property damage. Most recently, Hurricane Rita in 2005 resulted in storm surge of 9.24 feet in Port Arthur, Texas, and just over eight feet in Sabine Pass. Hurricane Ike in 2008 produced storm surges from 14 feet near Sabine Pass with 11 to 12 feet across Sabine Lake. Port Arthur was spared the storm surge thanks to its 14- to 17-foot seawall. However, the remaining southern half of Jefferson County was inundated, with estimated high water marks reaching 18 to 19 feet to the south and east of High Island. ES-2 Executive Summary Both hurricanes resulted in significant impacts on coastal shorelines, marsh, and forested wetlands. Shorelines eroded in some areas, while others were covered with several feet of sediment. Thousands of acres of coastal marsh were inundated with high salinity Gulf waters, scouring and killing marsh types that were not tolerant of the higher salinity. In addition to inundating marshes near the coast, tidal surges resulted in significantly increased salinities in large areas of swamp and freshwater marsh in the Sabine region for months after the storms. Specific Problem and Opportunity statements were developed to address the need to reduce coastal storm risks in the study area, and these are described in the main body of this FIFR-EIS, in Chapter 4. This study identifies a Recommended Plan for implementation to address the storm surge flooding in the study area. Considering the recent damages from Hurricane Ike, the population and infrastructure of the region, and the national significance of the economic and environmental resources within the region, there is a Federal interest for implementing a project. A variety of alternatives were analyzed in the study, including the “No Action Alternative.” The “No Action Alternative” is synonymous with the terms “future without-project” or “future without-project condition”. These terms are used interchangeably throughout the FIFR-EIS and provided for a baseline comparison of all alternatives. The without-project condition describes the condition that is expected to prevail in the planning area in the future if the No Action Alternative is selected as the best thing to do. The alternatives were also measured against planning criteria developed for the study that align with USACE policies. PLANNING OBJECTIVES The objectives listed below were developed from problem and opportunity statements and used to guide the plan formulation for the Recommended Plan. The alternatives were measured throughout the study using the measuring criteria and in greater