Draft Environmental Assessment State Highway 200 From State Highway 361 to Farm-to-Market 1069 CSJ: 3540-01-001 San Patricio County, Texas July 2015
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT
Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table of Contents
1.0 Proposed Action ...... 1
1.1. Existing ...... 1
1.2. Proposed ...... 2
2.0 Funding...... 2
3.0 Need for the Proposed Project ...... 3
4.0 Purpose of the Proposed Project ...... 6
5.0 Alternatives ...... 6
5.1. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study ...... 6
5.2. No-Build Alternative ...... 8
5.3. Preferred Alternative ...... 8
6.0 Right-of-Way ...... 9
7.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ...... 9
8.0 Surrounding Area ...... 9
8.1. Visual/Aesthetics Summary ...... 10
8.2. Utilities/Emergency Services Summary ...... 10
9.0 Community ...... 10
9.1. Community Profile ...... 10
9.1.1. Race ...... 10
9.1.2. Income ...... 11
9.1.3. Limited English Proficiency ...... 11
9.2. Socioeconomics ...... 11
9.3. Community Impacts ...... 12
9.4. Environmental Justice ...... 12
10.0 Land Use ...... 13
Page i Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
11.0 Cultural Resources ...... 14
11.1. Historic Resources ...... 14
11.2. Archeological Resources ...... 15
12.0 Section 4(F) and Section 6(F) Resources ...... 15
13.0 Biological Resources ...... 15
13.1. Vegetation ...... 15
13.2. Invasive Species and Beneficial Landscaping ...... 18
13.3. Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) ...... 18
13.4. Threatened and Endangered Species/Species of Concern ...... 19
13.5. Migratory Birds ...... 20
13.6. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Action ...... 20
13.7. Texas Coastal Management Program ...... 21
13.8. Essential Fish Habitat ...... 21
14.0 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 22
14.1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Waters of the U.S...... 22
14.2. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: Water Quality Certification ...... 24
14.3. Executive Order 11990, Wetlands ...... 24
14.4. Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (General Bridge Act/US Coast Guard Permit) .. 25
14.5. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act ...... 25
14.6. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ..... 26
14.7. Floodplains ...... 26
14.8. International Boundary and Water Commission ...... 28
14.9. Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 28
15.0 Traffic Noise ...... 29
16.0 Air Quality ...... 32
16.1. Traffic Air Quality Analysis ...... 32
16.2. Congestion Management Process...... 32
16.3. Mobile Source Air Toxics ...... 32
Page ii Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
16.3.1. Background ...... 32
16.3.2. Project-Specific MSAT Information ...... 35 16.3.3. Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis ...... 36
16.3.4. Conclusion ...... 38
17.0 Hazardous Materials ...... 38
18.0 Construction Impacts ...... 40
19.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ...... 41
19.1. Indirect Effects Analysis ...... 41
19.1.1. Step 1: Scoping ...... 42
19.1.2. Step 2: Identify the Study Area’s Goals and Trends...... 44
19.1.3. Step 3: Inventory the Study Area’s Notable Features ...... 47
19.1.4. Step 4: Identify Impact-Causing Activities of Proposed Action and Alternatives ..... 48
19.1.5. Step 5: Identify Potentially Substantial Indirect Effects for Analysis ...... 50
19.1.6. Step 6: Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Results ...... 52
19.2. Cumulative Effects Analysis...... 53
19.2.1. Step 1: Identify the resources to consider in the analysis ...... 53
19.2.2. Step 2: Define the study area for each resource ...... 55
19.2.3. Step 3: Describe the current health and historical context for each resource ...... 56 19.2.4. Step 4: Identify direct and indirect impacts of the project that might contribute to a cumulative impact ...... 58
19.2.5. Step 5: Identify other reasonably foreseeable future effects ...... 59
19.2.6. Step 6: Identify and assess potential cumulative impacts ...... 61
19.2.7. Step 7: Report the results ...... 63
19.2.8. Step 8: Assess the need for mitigation ...... 64
20.0 Permits/Agency Coordination ...... 64
20.1. USACE ...... 64
20.2. TCEQ (TPDES, NOI, SW3P) ...... 65
Page iii Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
20.3. TPWD ...... 65
21.0 Commitments ...... 65
22.0 Public Involvement ...... 68
23.0 References ...... 70
Figures Figure 1 - SH 361 / FM 1069 Annual Average Daily Traffic (TxDOT Traffic Maps, Corpus Christi District) ...... 3 Figure 2 - Timeline of AADT Data and Industrial Development Milestones ...... 4 Figure 3 - Current Travel Route and Impediments ...... 5 Figure 4 - Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 – 2050 For Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using EPA’s MOVES2010b Model ...... 34 Figure 5 - Population trends of Ingleside, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau) ...... 47
Tables
Table 1 - Route Alternatives Summary ...... 7 Table 2 - Household Income Summary ...... 13 Table 3 - Vegetation types and coverages within the project corridor, as classified by three sources...... 17 Table 4 - NDD species records within 1.5 miles of the proposed project area ...... 19 Table 5 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) ...... 29 Table 6 - Existing and Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels ...... 31 Table 7 - Land Activity Category and Predicted Noise Contours ...... 31 Table 8 - Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 – 2050 For Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using EPA’s MOVES2010b Model ...... 34 Table 9 - Abbreviated Summary of Regulatory Database Listing ...... 39 Table 10 - Number of home to work trips to San Patricio County by county ...... 43 Table 11 - Commuting characteristics for the City of Ingleside ...... 45 Table 12 - Population estimates and projections ...... 47 Table 13 - Anticipated average daily traffic volumes of the proposed SH 200 (SH 361 to FM 1069) ...... 47
Page iv Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 14 - Notable features within the AOI...... 48 Table 15 - Impact-causing activities ...... 49 Table 16 - Determination of resources to include in the cumulative impacts analysis...... 54 Table 17 - Current or planned development projects in the Ingleside area (future foreseeable actions)...... 60 Table 18 - Possible impacted species and corresponding guidelines and TxDOT-TPWD BMPs to be implemented ...... 66
Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Project Location Map
Exhibit 3 – Primary Corridor
Exhibit 4 – Map of State Highway 200 Alternatives
Exhibit 5 – Map of Northern Intersection
Exhibit 6 – Map of Southern Intersection
Exhibit 7 – Preliminary Plan for Kinney Bayou Bridge
Exhibit 8 – Property Boundary Map
Exhibit 9 – 1938 Historical Aerial
Exhibit 10 – Floodplain Map
Exhibit 11 – National Wetlands Inventory Map
Exhibit 12 – Soils Map
Exhibit 13 – Essential Fish Habitat Mapping & Salinity and Conductivity Sampling
Exhibit 14 – Noise Modeling Receiver Map
Exhibit 15 – Soil Sampling Locations
Exhibit 16 – Area of Influence
Appendices
Page v Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Appendix A – Community Demographics
Appendix B – Habitat Characterization
Appendix C – Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Appendix D – Texas Department of Transportation Traffic Data
Appendix E – Agency Correspondence
Page vi Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
List of Acronyms
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ACS American Community Survey AOI Area of Influence BMP Best Management Practice BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMP Coastal Management Program CNRA Coastal Natural Resource Area CO Carbon Monoxide CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels dB(A) A-weighted Decibels DCIS Design and Construction Information System EFH Essential Fish Habitat EMST Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPIC Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments ESA Environmental Site Assessment FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration FM Farm-to-Market FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HEI Health Effects Institute IP Individual Permit IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LEP Limited English Proficiency Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MPH Miles Per Hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization mS/cm Millisiemens Per Centimeter MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics MSL Mean Sea Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NATA National Air Toxics Assessments NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Page vii Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places NS Naval Station NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark PCN Pre-construction Notification PM Particulate Matter ppt Parts Per Thousand ROW Right-Of-Way RSA Resource Study Area SH State Highway STIP State Transportation Improvement Plan SW3P Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Texas Administrative Code TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TGLO Texas General Land Office THC Texas Historical Commission TNM Traffic Noise Modeling TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program TSS Total Suspended Solids TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation TXNDD Texas Natural Diversity Database USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VMT Vehicle-Miles Travelled
Page viii Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
1.0 Proposed Action
The City of Ingleside, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), proposes the construction of State Highway (SH) 200 from SH 361 to Farm-to-Market (FM) 1069 in the City of Ingleside, located in San Patricio County on the north side of Corpus Christi Bay (Exhibits 1 and 2). The proposed SH 200 shall be constructed as a principal arterial roadway to route commercial/industrial traffic around the southwestern portion of the City of Ingleside. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) designated SH 200 (also currently referred to as the Ingleside Industrial Corridor) in 1988 as a proposed route from SH 361 to the developing Naval Station Ingleside site south of the City of Ingleside (the City). The proposed SH 200 corridor shall consist of approximately 1.98 miles of 160-foot right-of-way (ROW) with four 12- foot wide travel lanes and two 10-foot wide shoulders (Exhibit 3A). The initial phase of construction will include two 12-foot travel lanes and two 10-foot wide shoulders within the 160-foot wide ROW (Exhibit 3B). The additional two 12-foot lanes will be built during the final phase of construction. The intent of the project is to provide a route around the City’s central business area (defined here as the main business and residential areas located in the central part of Ingleside), thereby decreasing congestion and increasing safety. The termini for SH 200 are SH 361 on the north and Farm-to-Market (FM) Road 1069 on the south in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 771.111(f). The proposed project has independent utility as it would function independently and serve the stated purpose and need without the construction of any other project.
The Project Location Map (Exhibit 2) and preferred alignment (Alternative D) shown in Exhibit 4 illustrate the extent of the project. Exhibits 3A and 3B illustrate the cross section views of proposed right-of-way and highway.
The objective of this Environmental Assessment is to evaluate potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed four-lane design of SH 200 between SH 361 and FM 1069 in Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas.
1.1. Existing
There are currently no improved roads within the proposed project site except for the SH 361 and FM 1069 termini. As stated above, the SH 200 route was designated by TxDOT in 1988, however, it has never been built. A portion of the proposed ROW traverses a former oil refinery and tank farm operated by Humble Oil Company. The oil refinery was closed in the 1940s but the tank farm continued to be operated by Exxon Pipeline Company until the 1990s and has since been removed; however, remnants of asphalt roads and building foundations are
Page 1 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 still present within parts of the project area. Other portions of the proposed ROW are undeveloped land.
1.2. Proposed
The proposed SH 200 project involves constructing an approximately 1.98 mile principal arterial roadway from the termini of SH 361 on the north to FM 1069 on the south, around the southwestern section of Ingleside, Texas (Exhibit 2). Specific details of the proposed project include:
Acquisition of approximately 1.98 miles of 160-foot wide right-of-way (approximately 38.34 acres). Initial construction of an at-grade two lane undivided highway with two 12-foot travel lanes and two 10-foot shoulders within the 160-foot wide ROW (Exhibit 3B). Future construction to add two additional 12-foot at-grade travel lanes to the undivided highway (Exhibit 3A). Construction of a signalized at-grade intersection at the SH 361 terminus (Exhibit 5). Construction of a signalized at-grade intersection at the FM 1069 terminus (Exhibit 6). Construction of a four lane bridge with shoulders over Kinney Bayou and removal of the existing box culvert at the crossing location (Exhibit 7A).
2.0 Funding
The proposed SH 200 project is listed in the Texas Department of Transportation’s Design and Construction Information System (DCIS) as a New Location Roadway with the type of work comprised of Grading, Structures, Base and Surfacing. Project limits are from SH 361 to FM 1069. Funding for initial phase construction, consisting of two 12 foot travel lanes and two 10 foot shoulders (Exhibit 3B), is listed with an authorized amount of $9,350,000. Local participation is in the amount of $6,000,000 with $3,350,000 of Category 11 (District Discretionary) funding. TxDOT’s discretionary funds are composed of 80% Federal and 20% State dollars. The total cost (initial phase plus two future additional 12 foot travel lanes; Exhibit 3A) is estimated to be $11,620.000.00. The proposed project is planned to be included in the Corpus Christi District’s rural portion of the FY 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This would occur during the next scheduled quarterly revision of the STIP. TxDOT will not take final action on this document until the proposed project is consistent with the current STIP.
Page 2 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
3.0 Need for the Proposed Project
The use of the central business area route by heavy industry has been recognized as a safety issue by the City of Ingleside since the mid-1980s. In 1988, the Texas Transportation Commission designated a route leading from SH 361 to the proposed Naval Station (NS) Ingleside site as SH 200, but the roadway was never built. The closure of NS Ingleside in 2010 resulted in a decrease in average annual daily traffic (AADT) to a level similar to pre-NS Ingleside levels, represented in the 2000 AADT data in Figure 1. Although NS Ingleside no longer exists as a Department of Defense facility, AADT data indicate that there continues to be higher traffic volume traveling south on FM 1069 through the City of Ingleside to the industrial facilities south of the City than in other segments of the business district (Figure 1). In addition, recently established industrial facilities along the La Quinta Ship Channel (such as Oxy Ingleside Energy Center) have likely increased traffic volume since 2012 and traffic volume is projected to continue to increase in this segment (see Section 19.1.2 and Appendix D).
Figure 1 - SH 361 / FM 1069 Annual Average Daily Traffic (TxDOT Traffic Maps, Corpus Christi District)
Page 3 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Figure 2 is a timeline of AADT data as related to milestones of select industrial developments south of the City of Ingleside.
2012 14500 AADT
2011 16000 AADT
1980 2010 4100 AADT 16600 AADT
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 4000 AADT 10700 AADT 13400 AADT 14400 AADT 21800 AADT 16900 AADT
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
1979 1988 1990 2002 2008 2013 NS Ingleside Groundbreaking NS Ingleside Dedicated Kiewit Operational 2003 Helix Operational NS Ingleside Complete 2010 4/9/90 2005 NS Ingleside Closed NS Ingleside Opened BRAC Voted to Close NS Ingleside
AADT data obtained from Texas Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning and Programming Division, Corpus Christi District Traffic Maps AADT data for the polling location on FM 1069 just south of the SH 361/FM 1069 intersection Facility Milestone Dates are Approximate Facility locations are shown in Exhibit 2 BRAC = Base Realignment and Closure
Figure 2 - Timeline of AADT Data and Industrial Development Milestones
The proposed SH 200 roadway would alleviate numerous undesirable consequences that result from the increased commercial and heavy industrial traffic that must currently travel south on FM 1069 through the central business area of the City of Ingleside, including:
Safety issues that result from the need to cross two (2) at-grade railroad crossings; Safety issues related to the school zone along FM 1069 within the City of Ingleside; Safety issues related to increased crash rates on FM 1069 between SH 361 and Vineyard Drive, as compared to the rate on SH 361 between CR 93 and FM 1069; Temporary removal of overhead utilities and traffic signals to accommodate oversized loads; and Congestion of City streets (FM 1069), which cannot be expanded to accommodate additional lanes.
Figure 3 illustrates the current travel route to access the heavy industry south of the City and the impediments to continued use of this route. Locations for some of the major industrial employers (City of Ingleside, 2009) in the area are shown on Exhibit 2.
Page 4 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
87
P R O P Current Industrial O S Travel Route E D Railroad Crossings S H Reported Crashes (2012 - 2013) 2 87 0 0 Signalized 143 Intersections School Zones
Schools 1) Ingleside High School 2) Leon Taylor Junior High School 3) Blaschke/Sheldon Elementary School 4) Gilbert J. Mircovich Elementary School 5) Ingleside Primary School
Figure 3 - Current Travel Route and Impediments
An additional need for constructing the proposed SH 200 is to fill the gap in the State Highway System as directed by the Texas Highway Commission Minute Order 87040, February 24, 1988, which was endorsed by the City of Ingleside.
Page 5 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
4.0 Purpose of the Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
Provide an alternative route option to remove hazards associated with the at-grade railroad crossings; Provide an alternative route option to remove hazards of heavy industrial traffic traversing the school zone and signalized intersections within the City of Ingleside; Reduce traffic congestion by an alternative route with the intent of reducing the incidence of crashes along FM 1069 from the SH 361 intersection to the proposed southern termini of SH 200; Provide an alternative route to relieve congestion within the central business area of the City of Ingleside; and Implement the minute order originally issued by the Texas Highway Commission in 1988.
5.0 Alternatives
5.1. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Several route and terminus alternatives were evaluated in a feasibility study (Naismith Engineering, Inc., 2009) which concluded that “Alternative D” best suited the needs and purposes of the project (see Exhibit 4). Alternatives A through C were eliminated from further study. The designs were developed as a set of route alternatives offering various curve radius options that accommodate design speeds from 45 to 60 MPH; with all Build Alternatives utilizing four undivided travel lanes and a 160’ wide right-of-way. Alternatives considered for the northern terminus other than a typical at-grade (same elevation) signalized intersection with two dedicated right turn lanes from SH 361 to SH 200 southbound, included 1) a typical at- grade intersection with an exit to overpass connection from SH 200 to SH 361 northbound and free-flow right turn lane from SH 361 to SH 200 southbound, and 2) an overpass elevating SH 361 through traffic over the proposed intersection and the adjacent railroad crossing. The northern terminus alternatives were evaluated in the feasibility study solely to ensure that future enhancements could be accommodated and not to meet the specific needs or purposes for this project. Identification of a preferred alternative was made after considering many factors, such as technical feasibility, cost, and potential environmental impacts. The 2009 feasibility study (Naismith Engineering, Inc., 2009) is available upon request. Table 1 summarizes the route alternatives that were evaluated.
Page 6 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 1 - Route Alternatives Summary
Alternative Length ROW Design Northern Southern Constraints Area Speed Terminus Terminus (miles) (acres) (MPH)
A 2.56 55.83 60 SH 361 Kiewit Road A portion of the alignment undesirably bisects a residential area. Southern intersection is less conducive to an efficient geometric layout. Portion of alignment passes through both freshwater and tidally influenced wetlands. B 2.67 55.43 50 SH 361 Kiewit Road Offers the least direct route across the former refinery/tank farm site. Higher degree of curvature accommodates lower design speeds (50 MPH) and provides less driver comfort at such speeds. Southern intersection is less conducive to an efficient geometric layout. Portion of alignment passes through both freshwater and tidally influenced wetlands. More extensive areas of hydrocarbon and arsenic contaminants occur within the former tank farm area than other alternative routes. C 2.59 50.32 50 SH 361 Kiewit Road A portion of the alignment undesirably bisects a residential area. Southern intersection is less conducive to an efficient geometric layout. This placement is prohibitive with regard to ROW acquisition requiring long term lease of ROW from Keiwit.
Page 7 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Alternative Length ROW Design Northern Southern Constraints Area Speed Terminus Terminus (miles) (acres) (MPH)
D 1.98 38.34 60 / 45 SH 361 FM 1069 Southern terminus is placed slightly north of the most desirable location. A portion of the alignment undesirably bisects a residential area. Wetlands impacted with Option A & B are avoided by routing alignment to the north of the wetlands. Kinney Bayou floodplain functioning is improved by removal of existing culverts. Expected lowest cost alternative
5.2. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not satisfy any of the needs or purposes for the project but is included for comparison purposes. This alternative would require existing and future traffic to travel through the central business area of the City of Ingleside and therefore not alleviate the safety, congestion, and mobility issues which are the primary objectives for adding SH 200 to the highway system.
5.3. Preferred Alternative
Considering all of the Build Alternatives, Alternative D is the selected preferred route. Alternative D avoids the wetlands near the Kiewit Offshore Services site, and will convert the existing Kinney Bayou culvert crossing near the southern terminus to an improved crossing structure (bridge). This is expected to reduce water quality impacts to Kinney Bayou and improve flow characteristics in the drainage conveyance. Additionally, the curves in this option, with the exception of the curve near the southern terminal point, were sized to accommodate a 60 MPH design speed. The curve leading into the southern terminal point intersection was sized to accommodate a design speed of 45 MPH, which accommodates a reduced speed zone leading up to the intersection, and allows for a safer and more efficient intersection geometric layout. This alternative is expected to have the lowest cost because of the significant reduction in needed ROW. Alternative D has an estimated project construction cost of $11,620,000.00
Page 8 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 based on current construction pricing. The estimated cost of $11,620.000.00 includes future build out to include four 12 foot travel lanes and two 10 foot shoulders (Exhibit 3A).
6.0 Right-of-Way
The proposed project would require approximately 38.34 acres of new right of way, none of which has been previously acquired through early acquisition. The proposed project would require new right of way from four privately owned properties, according to data obtained from the San Patricio County Appraisal District. According to the City of Ingleside’s website, approximately 4.62 acres of the proposed ROW are zoned as general commercial; 7.23 acres light industrial; 15.40 acres residential; and 11.09 acres are zoned as industrial (City of Ingleside, 2015).
All right of way acquisition would be completed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The proposed project would not require the displacement of any residences or businesses. All of the property owners have expressed willingness to either donate or sell land required for the proposed ROW. ROW acquisition negotiations will begin after the Environmental Assessment is approved by TxDOT. A property boundary map is provided in Exhibit 8. Under the No Build Alternative, no additional ROW would be acquired.
7.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The March 23, 2011 TxDOT memorandum “Guidelines Emphasizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations” and the March 11, 2010 U.S. Department of Transportation’s Policy Statement on “Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations, Regulations, and Recommendations” were considered during the development of potential bicycle and pedestrian concepts. The proposed alternative would be a rural roadway in an industrial area which includes higher speed elements and industrial traffic. Furthermore, no schools, businesses, or residences are located within the project limits, therefore bicycle and pedestrian lanes are not proposed. The proposed project would include a 10-foot shoulder which could be utilized by bicyclists and pedestrians. The No Build Alternative would not cause any adverse effects regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
8.0 Surrounding Area
The project is located in currently undeveloped land west of the central business district in Ingleside, Texas within a former industrial area. Adjacent properties are privately owned and include land owned by Express Midstream Services, LLC, Exxon Pipeline Company, the Mircovich family (Mircovich Property), and the Welder family (Welder Property) (see Exhibit 8).
Page 9 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Caliche roads, pipeline and utility line ROWs, and remnants of asphalt roads and building foundations are present within the project area. All portions of the proposed SH 200 route are disturbed, with no rare or special habitat present. Predominant habitat types within the project area are Tamaulipan savanna grassland, native invasive shrub and woodland, and Texas saline coastal prairie (see Section 13.1). The No Build Alternative would not cause any disturbance to the present habitat or surrounding area.
8.1. Visual/Aesthetics Summary
The proposed project would generally be an at-grade new location facility. The construction of grade separations at Kinney Bayou could potentially make portions of the roadway more visible from the surrounding area, although the line of sight would likely be below existing utility lines. The relationship between the transportation facility and the surrounding environment under the Build Alternative would have minimal impact or be substantially different visually or aesthetically than the existing condition. The No Build Alternative would not change the existing visual and aesthetic qualities in the project area.
8.2. Utilities/Emergency Services Summary
The proposed project may require the relocation of underground or overhead utilities. At this stage of the project, the locations of utilities potentially requiring adjustment or relocation have not been identified. Subsurface and overhead utility locating would be an element of the detailed design, and coordination with the utility owners on possible relocation options would take place at that time. Utility relocations and adjustment would be accomplished with the minimum practicable disruption in service to customers.
The project area is served by the City of Ingleside emergency services. The proposed project would not affect current roadways, and emergency access would be preserved. The No Build Alternative would not affect utilities or the provision of emergency services.
9.0 Community
9.1. Community Profile
9.1.1. Race
A minority population is defined as persons classified by the U.S. Bureau of Census as Black/African-American; Hispanic; Asian or Pacific Islander; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; or other non-white persons. Data from the 2010 U.S. Census indicates that some of the block groups (Block Group 3 of Census Tract 103.02 and Block Group 1 of Census Tract 107) in the project vicinity do contain over 50 percent minority populations. Most minorities in the area
Page 10 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino (see Table 1 in Appendix A for detailed race and ethnicity data from the 2010 U.S. Census).
9.1.2. Income
Data were collected from the 2008-2012 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) regarding median household income and poverty within the project area (see Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix A). Census data reveal that the median household income within each of the block groups in the project area is above the national poverty guideline. The 2015 poverty guideline is $24,250 for a family of four (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). The percentage of the population below the poverty level ranges from 10.0% in Census Tract 107 to 11.7% in Census Tract 103.02 (see Census Tract Map in Appendix A).
9.1.3. Limited English Proficiency
Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so that LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. Data from the 2008-2012 U.S. Census ACS were collected for populations that speak English “not well” or “not at all” within the project area (see Table 4 in Appendix A). Data indicated that LEP populations are present in the project area, with 3 of the 5 block groups containing Spanish- speaking LEP residents. Among the project block groups, Block Group 3 of Census Tract 103.02 contained the highest percentage of Spanish-speaking LEP residents at 20.9%. The project area did not contain any populations of Indo-European, Asian and Pacific Island, and Other language LEP residents. While LEP populations exist within the Block groups affected by the project area, the specific project route is in a mostly undeveloped and industrial area and as such a survey, as recommended by TxDOT Environmental Affairs division, was conducted on foot and found no Spanish-language signs or advertisements. Outreach will be provided to those communities with LEP populations.
9.2. Socioeconomics
The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) Community Impact Assessment handbook defines community by geography or spatial components but also as a group of people experiencing similar conditions or showing similar behavior patterns (Federal Highway Administration, 1996). The areas directly adjacent to the project consist primarily of undeveloped land and are zoned for residential, industrial, light industrial, and general commercial uses. The proposed project would require right-of-way procurement; however no residential or business displacement is required. Access to adjacent homes and roadways would not be removed or impeded. The No
Page 11 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Build Alternative would not cause displacement of residents, businesses, or access drives/roads.
9.3. Community Impacts
Right-of-way requirements for the project will not result in any displacements or relocations. The project would maintain access to existing driveways and would not separate or isolate any distinct neighborhoods, ethnic groups, or other specific groups. Addition of the highway is expected to improve mobility for both regional commuters as well as residents and is expected to alleviate congestion in the Ingleside central business area. The proposed project would not create any new barriers that would separate neighborhoods or community resources; therefore, community cohesion would be maintained and no long-term adverse impacts to community cohesion are expected as a result of the proposed project. The No Build Alternative would not cause any displacement, separation, or isolation within the community.
9.4. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requires each federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The FHWA has identified three fundamental principles of environmental justice:
1. To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations; 2. To ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; 3. To prevent the denial of, reduction, or significant delay, in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income populations.
Disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects are defined by FHWA as adverse effects that:
1. Are predominately borne by a minority population and/or low-income population; or 2. Would be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and are appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by the nonminority population and/or non-low-income population.
Page 12 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
A low income population is defined as a population with a median annual income of $24,250 or less for a family of four (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). Data from the 2008-2012 ACS 5-year estimates were used for this assessment. Data from the 2008-2012 ACS indicate that all census tracts within and adjacent to the project area exhibit median household incomes above the national poverty guideline. In addition, census tracts within the project area have a lower percentage of households with incomes below the poverty level when compared to San Patricio County as a whole (see Table 2).
Table 2 - Household Income Summary
Median Household Income Percentage of Households with Total Location Incomes Below the Poverty Households Estimate Margin of Error Level* Texas 8,782,598 $51,563 +/- 138 16.8% San Patricio County 22,593 $51,104 +/- 3,016 16.6% Ingleside 3,503 $62,953 +/- 8,943 11.4% Census Tract 103.02 1,764 $62,083 +/- 9,096 11.7% Census Tract 107 1,427 $75,781 +/- 16,071 10.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 ACS, 5-year estimates, Tables S1903 and S1701 *Calculated margin of error not available for household poverty percentages
Properties to the west and south of the proposed SH 200 are predominantly zoned for industrial and residential uses. SH 200 is not expected to pass through any areas that would require addressing the human health and environmental effects of the project on low income and minority populations. Although minority and low income populations exist in the vicinity of the project area, the percentage of minorities and low income populations is comparable, if not lower, to San Patricio County as a whole and to the City of Ingleside. Therefore, the project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and/or low-income populations. The No Build Alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority populations or low-income populations.
10.0 Land Use
The preferred SH 200 route is approximately 1.98 miles in length and extends from SH 361 to the intersection of Belair Avenue and FM 1069. Four privately-owned properties are crossed by the proposed route. Approximate locations of the properties within the project corridor are at Stations 1-29, Stations 30-62, Stations 63-71, and Stations 72-103 (see Exhibit 8).
A historic aerial photo of a portion of the proposed SH 200 route can be seen in Exhibit 9. Historically, the northern two properties were once part of the former Humble Oil and Refining
Page 13 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Company (Guthrie, 1986). At that time, the property consisted of a refinery and tank farm with many aboveground storage tanks and a large artificial impoundment located west of the proposed highway route (near Stations 22-30). The tanks and buildings have been removed and the property is currently idle and dominated by rank growth of vegetation including a variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses. The property located at Stations 63-71 was formerly used as cropland, but has been fallow for many years and is now characterized as coastal prairie and mesquite savanna. Although the southernmost property contains patches of dense native brush, it has historically been used for the production of livestock.
Based upon known historic land use and field observations made in 2010 and 2015, the current land use can be described as undeveloped former industrial and undeveloped agricultural. Caliche roads, pipeline and utility line ROWs, and remnants of asphalt roads and building foundations are present within the project area. All portions of the proposed SH 200 route are disturbed, with no rare or special habitat present. More information regarding the vegetation and habitat is included in Section 13.1 and Appendix B. The No Build Alternative would not affect current land use activities.
11.0 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources can be structures, buildings, archeological sites, districts, cemeteries, and objects that are generally 50 years of age or older, per the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) requirements, and meet one of the following NRHP criteria:
associated with significant events or trends in history associated with people of transcendent importance architectural significance yield important information
At the federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, among others, apply to transportation projects. At the state level, laws such as the Antiquities Code of Texas apply.
11.1. Historic Resources
Review and coordination of this project followed approved procedures for compliance with federal and state laws. The Texas Historical Commission’s Historic Sites Atlas was used to search for historic sites near the highway project. A request for a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) consultation was sent to the Texas Historical Commission (THC). The consultation included a review of historical structures along the proposed highway route. According to the SHPO, no historic properties will be affected by the project. A copy of the
Page 14 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 response from the SHPO is included in Appendix E. The No Build Alternative would not impact any historic resources.
11.2. Archeological Resources
The SHPO consultation included a review of known archaeological records within the proposed highway route. The SHPO response authorized the project to proceed, however if archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work will cease and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted who will evaluate the findings and coordinate with the THC. The No Build Alternative would not impact any archeological resources.
12.0 Section 4(F) and Section 6(F) Resources A Section 4(f) statement (authorized by the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966) is not required because the proposed project would not impact any wildlife or waterfowl refuges, publicly owned parklands, recreational areas, or historic sites; nor would the proposed project impact any areas of unique scenic beauty or other lands of national, state, or local importance.
No properties protected under Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act occur within the SH 200 project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any property protected under Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
13.0 Biological Resources
13.1. Vegetation
The proposed SH 200 project is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Corpus Christi Bay shoreline in San Patricio County, and is within the Western Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion of the Tamaulipan Biotic Province of Texas. Average rainfall in San Patricio County is approximately 35 inches per year, with a growing season of approximately 308 days a year (Alvarez and Plocheck, 2010). Elevations in the SH 200 work corridor are approximately 14-16 feet above sea level except for the Kinney Bayou floodplain, which ranges 6-10 feet above sea level.
The project site is drained by Kinney Bayou and Humble Ditch, both of which drain into Corpus Christi Bay (see Exhibit 10). Kinney Bayou is a natural (but excavated and maintained) drainage way which receives stormwater from the City of Ingleside and treated effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WQ0010422001). Freshwater aquatic vegetation such as cattail (Typha spp.) is present at the Kinney Bayou project crossing (see Appendix B, Photo 29). Salinity was less than 3 parts per thousand salt during a February 5, 2015 field study performed at this location (see Exhibit 13B). Lower reaches of Kinney Bayou (approximately 0.6 miles
Page 15 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 downstream of the project site) are tidally influenced and classified as intertidal estuarine wetlands by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Exhibit 11).
Some portions of the proposed SH 200 corridor (Stations 40+00 through 51+00 and 94+00 through 99+00) contained hydrophytic vegetation such as bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), late boneset (Eupatorium serotinum), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), Gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), and Ludwigia spp. (see Appendix B). See Section 14.1 for more information about these wetland areas.
Based on two field investigations (conducted September 2010 and January/February 2015) and past land use (see Land Use, Section 10.0), the proposed project corridor could be characterized as mostly disturbed with no designated critical habitat, rare, or protected vegetation communities present. In addition, a search of the Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) revealed no remnant vegetation within 1.5 miles of the project (Appendix C). The southern portion of the project area is located approximately 0.25 miles west of the “Deep Sand Live Oak Forest and Woodland” (listed by the Texas Organization for Endangered Species as a threatened natural community vulnerable to extirpation); however, the project area does not contain the deep sand soils (Galveston-Mustang Association) which support this community type (Exhibit 12). The No Build Alternative would not cause impacts to critical or imperiled habitats or rare or protected vegetation.
In general, the northern portion of the SH 200 project area is dominated by trees and shrubs (including native and introduced invasive species), the central portion contains salty prairie and grasslands, and the southern portion of the project area is dominated by native thornscrub woodlands (Appendix B). Native thornscrub woodlands (classified here as South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland) are located on the southernmost property which has traditionally been used for livestock production. These woodlands contain dense mottes of native shrubs such as blackbrush (Acacia rigidula), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), and spiny hackberry (Celtis ehrenbergiana) and are interspersed with small depressions containing emergent wetland vegetation such as Sagittaria spp., Ludwigia spp., and spikerush (see Appendix B). These thornscrub woodlands may also be classified by the United States National Vegetation Classification system as “Tamaulipan Thornscrub Chaparro-prieto Shrubland (Acacia rigidula Shrubland)” which is G4/G5 rank, meaning it is an “apparently secure to secure” vegetation type (NatureServe, 2001). Although these woodlands have value to wildlife and the ecosystem, they are not considered imperiled or in need of special conservation.
Page 16 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
During the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Naismith Engineering, Inc., 2010), a photographic baseline vegetation inventory was taken. Subsequent examination was made to determine dominant vegetation at each of the 103 stations along the route. Dominant vegetation and known soil types were used to assign Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas (EMST) vegetation types (common names) by station number, which are presented in Appendix B along with available EMST data. Appendix B also shows soil types, dominant vegetation, as well as past and present land use for each vegetation type. Representative photographs from the September-October 2010 and January – February 2015 field investigations are included in Appendix B. Results of a Tier 1 Site Assessment and site visit conducted by TxDOT on March 5, 2014, are included in Appendix E.
Table 3 shows results from each of the three sources of vegetation type information and the total number of acres estimated for each type. The 160 feet wide x 10,439 feet (1.98 mile) long proposed ROW and impact area for the SH 200 project totals approximately 38.34 acres. The discrepancy between total acreages in Table 3 is a result of the additional 0.51 acres of urban roadway intersections which were not evaluated during the Tier I Site Assessment (Appendix B).
Table 3 - Vegetation types and coverages within the project corridor, as classified by three sources
Vegetation Type Vegetation Type EMST Mapped Tier I Site 2010 Field (Ecosystem) (EMST) Acres Assessment Acres Survey Acres Central and Upper NA 0.71 NA NA Texas Coast Dune and Coastal Grassland Central Texas Coastal Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland 1.02 0.29 0.10 Prairie Riparian Texas Coast Salt and NA 1.25 0.23 NA Brackish Tidal Marsh Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie 16.23 NA 5.56 Coastal Prairie Texas Saline Coastal Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland 14.77 27.47 8.07 Prairie Native Invasive Shrub Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland 1.89 7.24 6.24 and Woodland Tamaulipan Savanna South Texas: Sandy Mesquite 0.27 NA 10.50 Grassland Savana Grassland
South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Urban Urban Low Intensity 1.69 2.60 3.11 NA Native Invasive: Baccharis NA NA 4.03 Shrubland NA Marsh (cattail) NA NA 0.73 TOTAL 37.83 37.83 38.34
Page 17 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
13.2. Invasive Species and Beneficial Landscaping
Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species was implemented to prevent introduction and provide control of invasive species as well as minimize their economic, ecological, and human health impacts (Government Printing Office, 1999). A number of invasive species were documented in the September - October 2010 site visit photos and during the January – February 2015 site visits including guineagrass (Urochloa maxima), Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), King Ranch bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica), and Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera). During the January – February 2015 site visits, one specimen of the highly invasive and State prohibited (Billlings, 2014) Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolious) was observed in an upland area adjacent to the Gulf cordgrass wetland near Station 45+00. This species has spread dramatically throughout the Texas Coastal Bend within the last four years (Texas Gulf Region Cooperative Weed Management Association, 2014). Every effort will be made to incorporate beneficial landscaping into project plans, including but not limited to planting native plants and using technologies and practices that conserve water and prevent pollution. Refer to Section 21 – Commitments for further discussion. The No Build Alternative would not contribute to the propagation of invasive species.
13.3. Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is to minimize the impact federal programs have due to unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that, to the extent possible, federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. For the purpose of the FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land.
According to the USDA Web Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014), approximately 26% of the project area contains Papalote fine sandy loam, a soil type which is classified as “prime farmland.” That 26% of the project area is approximately equally divided among two properties, one of which was formerly used for farmland approximately 30 years ago. However, no portion of the proposed SH 200 project site is currently used for farmland, and no portion of the project site is classified as unique farmland or land of statewide or local importance. An evaluation request was sent to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in July 2014 and according to the State Resources Inventory Coordinator, the proposed SH 200 project is exempt from FPPA coordination because it is within an area classified as “prior
Page 18 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 converted.” The official correspondence and Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects Form (CPA-106) are included in Appendix E. The No Build Alternative would not impact active farmland, unique farmland, or land of statewide or local importance.
13.4. Threatened and Endangered Species/Species of Concern
San Patricio County may contain 54 federal and/or state-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and rare species according to review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), TPWD (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) lists as of January 2015 (see Appendix C). No designated critical habitat for any federal species is present within the project area. Federal-listed species which could potentially occur within the project area include the candidate Sprague’s pipit and endangered northern aplomado falcon. Neither of these species would be expected to nest in the area or be affected by the proposed project. Detailed analysis of federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species as well as “species of greatest conservation need” is presented in the table in Appendix C.
The TPWD’s TXNDD was searched as part of the Tier I Site Assessment on March 26, 2014 to further investigate any threatened or endangered species that may occur within 1.5 miles of the proposed project area (see Table 4). According to the TPWD Site Assessment, the 2010 field survey documentation, and the 2015 site visits, no suitable habitat for these species is present in the project area.
Table 4 - NDD species records within 1.5 miles of the proposed project area
Element of Occurrence ID Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State No. Status 1060 keeled earless lizard Holbrookia propinqua SX 1473 jaguarundi Herpailurus yaguarondi FE / S1 0858 threeflower broomweed Thurovia triflora S2S3
A site visit by TPWD and TxDOT representatives was conducted on March 5, 2014 where TPWD determined that habitat for the state-listed rare plains spotted skunk, threatened Texas indigo snake, threatened southern yellow bat, and nesting birds was likely to occur in the project area. Additional coordination with TPWD was completed regarding four additional species (white- tailed hawk, Texas tortoise, Texas horned lizard, and coastal gay-feather) which could potentially occur in the project area (Appendix E). The No Build Alternative would not impact any threatened or endangered species or species of concern.
Page 19 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
13.5. Migratory Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 is a federal law (16 USC 703-712) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR Parts 10, 14, 20 and 21). This act currently protects 1,007 species of birds, making it unlawful to “take” migratory birds, which includes most native birds in the United States that migrate as well as some species that do not. Under the MBTA, “take” means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any such bird covered by the MBTA, including active nests, eggs, and young, or to attempt those activities. Under provisions of the MBTA, it is also unlawful to cause any physical harm to non-nesting native birds.
The proposed project site does support native birds (nesting and non-nesting) that are protected by law from physical harm. Evidence of past nesting within the work corridor was documented during the March 5, 2014 field investigation. Many nests were present in trees and shrubs, and cave swallows with mud nests were observed in the box culverts under the road that crosses Kinney Bayou (Appendix B photo #30). Some species of birds may nest during winter months or throughout the year.
Project personnel must avoid disturbing, destroying, removing, or relocating active nests found in trees, culverts, bridges, cavities, on the ground, or elsewhere. Inadvertent destruction of active nests (or any other form of physical harm to protected birds) constitutes a violation of the MBTA; therefore, best management practices (BMPs) for protected birds will be implemented to ensure compliance with the MBTA. BMPs include scheduling tree-trimming and vegetation clearing outside of peak nesting season (September-February) when possible, and taking extra precautions during peak nesting season (March through August) to locate and avoid active nests within the work corridor. More information regarding MBTA compliance is included in Section 21 - Commitments. The No Build Alternative would not impact any bird species protected under the MBTA.
13.6. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Action
Consultation with natural resource agencies under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 is not required for this project because proposed work in potential wetlands would be authorized under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) #14, rather than an Individual Permit (IP). The No Build Alternative would not require any consultation or permitting.
Page 20 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
13.7. Texas Coastal Management Program
Texas has an approved Coastal Management Program (CMP) which is currently administered by the Texas General Land Office (TGLO). Under the CMP, agency actions that are within coastal boundaries are subject to the CMP and must comply with the CMP’s applicable goals and policies.
The proposed project is located within San Patricio County, which is within the Texas CMP Boundary as defined in Title 31, Texas Administrative Code, Section 503.1 (31 TAC 503.1) (see Appendix B). Coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs) that occur within the vicinity of the proposed project include coastal wetlands and special hazard areas. The proposed SH 200 crossing at Kinney Bayou is located within one mile of the mean high tide portion of Kinney Bayou (coastal wetland) and is within the 100-year flood zone (special hazard area). These CNRAs may be impacted by box culvert removal and bridge construction at Kinney Bayou. The No Build Alternative would not impact any CNRAs.
Correspondence from the TGLO dated August 11, 2014 stated that the project would not likely have adverse impacts on CNRAs (see Appendix E). If a USACE permit is required, it will be subject to consistency review under the Texas Coastal Management Program.
13.8. Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (which has jurisdiction over the management and conservation of marine fish species) was amended in 1996 to include essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 U.S.C. 1802 (10)). “Necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem (50 CFR 600.10) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2004). Salinity is a critical factor to the life cycle of marine organisms and is used in the determination of EFH mapping.
No mapped EFH exists within the project ROW (see Exhibit 13A), nor would the portion of Kinney Bayou within the ROW support a sustainable fishery due to intermittent flow, distance (0.6 miles) from mapped EFH, and the discharge of fresh water from the City of Ingleside’s wastewater treatment plant. To ensure that EFH is not present within the project corridor, a field study was completed on February 2, 2015 which involved taking salinity and conductivity readings in Kinney Bayou beginning near the City of Ingleside’s municipal wastewater treatment plant and ending at the Jewel Fulton Bridge (see Exhibit 13B). Salinity is expressed in parts per thousand (ppt) and represents the concentration of all dissolved salts in water. Conductivity (as
Page 21 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 expressed in millisiemens per centimeter; mS/cm) is commonly used to indicate salinity of water as it measures the concentration of conductive ions in the water which includes the ions of dissolved salts. There were 19 salinity and conductivity readings taken using a multiparameter meter (YSI 556 Multiprobe System). The salinity readings ranged from 1 ppt near the wastewater treatment plant (sample point KB Right Branch on Exhibit 13B) to 30 ppt near the Jewel Fulton Bridge (sample point KB19 on Exhibit 13B). The correlating conductivity readings ranged from 0.234 mS/cm near the wastewater treatment plant (sample point KB Right Branch on Exhibit 13B) to 43.030 mS/cm near the Jewel Fulton Bridge (sample point KB19 on Exhibit 13B). Typically, fresh water is less than 1 ppt or 0.5 to 0.8 mS/cm and seawater is considered to be greater than 30 ppt or 55 mS/cm. The largest change in salinity occurred between sample points KB16 and KB17, where the readings were 10 ppt and 21 ppt, respectively. The largest change in conductivity occurred upstream between sample points KB15 and KB16, where the readings were 7.710 mS/cm and 48.100 mS/cm, respectively. The area between sample points KB17 and KB15 represents the saltwater interface and therefore the upstream limit within Kinney Bayou which could sustain marine organisms. The location of the saltwater interface derived from the field study data confirmed EFH mapping (see Exhibit 13B). Kinney Bayou’s salinity within the SH 200 corridor was 1 ppt while conductivity was 1.110 mS/cm (sample point KB2 on Exhibit 13B) which indicates that the area specifically within the corridor would not support a sustainable fishery.
The downstream portion of Kinney Bayou which is mapped as EFH is considered important habitat for red drum, shrimp, reef fish, stone crab, coastal migratory pelagics, and sharks (see Exhibit 13A). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P) and water quality BMPs will be implemented so that no impacts to EFH downstream of the project area will occur. The proposed project will include converting the existing Kinney Bayou culvert crossing near the southern terminus to an improved crossing structure (bridge). Removal of existing culverts is expected to reduce water quality impacts to Kinney Bayou and improve water flow which will be beneficial to fish populations that are potentially present in the project area and downstream of the project area. The No Build Alternative would not impact any EFH.
14.0 Water Resources and Water Quality
14.1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Waters of the U.S.
Wetland areas within the proposed SH 200 project may require permit coverage by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These areas include the Kinney Bayou crossing, a freshwater emergent wetland between Stations 40+00 and 42+00, two Gulf cordgrass wetlands between Stations 44+00 and 51+00, and small freshwater depressions
Page 22 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 located between Stations 94+00 and 99+00. Wetland delineation maps are provided in Appendix B.
The project area at Kinney Bayou is a Water of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A bridge spanning the bayou will be constructed, and the existing culverts are proposed to be removed. Construction of bridge pilings will span the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) pending a determination by the USACE on the exact location of the OHWM (see Section 20.1). Removal of the culverts may include temporary by-pass pumping, a coffer dam, and other total suspended solids (TSS) controls during the temporary work phase. The culverts represent 60 linear feet of channelized stream bank; the total maximum disturbance to the stream bank would be 160 linear feet. The estimated area of impact from bridge pilings is 40.5 square feet (Exhibit 7A and 7B). Removal of existing culverts is expected to alleviate temporary erosion during flood events caused by an increase in the water velocity as it passes through a restricted space or “bottleneck”. This project is expected to have a positive impact on Kinney Bayou water quality by reducing erosion and improving water flow.
A freshwater emergent wetland is located at Stations 40+00 through 42+00 (see Appendix B, Photos 10-12 and Wetlands Delineation Map). During the January 2015 site visit this wetland was found to have hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation such as late boneset, bushy bluestem, Roosevelt willow (Baccharis neglecta), watercress, spikerush, and Ludwigia spp. This wetland encompasses approximately 0.797 acres with approximately 0.499 acres within the project corridor (see Appendix B). Historical aerial photography indicates that this area was manipulated (excavated) in relation to the former Humble Oil and Refining Company (see Exhibit 9).
A Gulf cordgrass wetland located within the salty prairie area is located between Stations 44+00 and 48+00 (Appendix B, Photos 13-19). During the January-February 2015 site visits this wetland was found to have hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation such as Gulf cordgrass, bushy bluestem, Roosevelt willow, watercress, and spikerush. This wetland is approximately 9.56 acres with approximately 0.840 acres within the project corridor.
Another Gulf cordgrass wetland is located between Stations 48+00 and 51+00. During the January-February 2015 site visits this wetland was found to have hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation such as Gulf cordgrass, bushy bluestem, Roosevelt willow, watercress, and spikerush. This wetland is approximately 0.334 acres with approximately 0.220 acres within the project corridor (see Appendix B). Historical aerial photography indicates that this area was also manipulated (excavated) in relation to the former Humble Oil and Refining Company (see Exhibit 9).
Page 23 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Small freshwater depressions are interspersed among the native thornscrub woodlands located at the southern end of the project corridor between Stations 94+00 and 99+00. This area was surveyed at the February 2015 site visit and a total of five (5) wetlands were found within the project corridor. The depressions contained hydric soil, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation including Sagittaria spp., Ludwigia spp., and Eleocharis spp. These depressions make up a total of 0.061 acres within the project corridor (see Appendix B).
A jurisdictional determination from the USACE regarding potential Section 404 permitting for the wetlands located between Stations 40+00 and 51+00, Kinney Bayou, and the wetlands located between Stations 94+00 and 99+00 is pending. Depending upon the findings of the USACE, one of the following outcomes relative to USACE permitting requirements may occur:
1) no permit required; 2) Regional General Permit; 3) Nationwide Permit (#14); 4) Letter of Permission; or 5) Individual Permit.
If required, a permit application will be submitted to the USACE. See Section 20.1 for more information regarding USACE permitting and coordination. The No Build Alternative would not impact any wetland areas.
14.2. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: Water Quality Certification
Section 401 Certification requirements for USACE permitting will be met by implementing one or more approved BMPs from each of the three categories identified in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions for Nationwide Permits. The categories include erosion control, sedimentation control, and post-construction TSS control. The No Build Alternative would not impact any Section 401 waters.
14.3. Executive Order 11990, Wetlands
Under Executive Order 11990, federal agencies are directed to avoid undertaking or assisting in new construction located in wetlands and to provide leadership in federally funded or federally regulated programs involving wetlands. Exceptions are allowed if the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
Page 24 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Alternative locations for the proposed SH 200 project were reviewed as required by Executive Order 11990 on wetlands, and were found to traverse historically contaminated areas and were determined to potentially impact more wetlands than the preferred alternative. Any impacts to wetlands from the preferred alternative will be in accordance with USACE permit conditions. No local or state permits protecting wetlands apply to this geographic area. The No Build Alternative would not impact any wetland areas.
14.4. Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (General Bridge Act/US Coast Guard Permit)
Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or within navigable waterways of the U.S. without approval of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
Previous coordination was conducted with the USCG regarding expansion of the Jewel Fulton Channel Bridge located on Kinney Bayou (approximately 1 mile downstream of the proposed SH 200 project). This coordination resulted in a determination by the USCG that the portion of Kinney Bayou at the Jewel Fulton Channel Bridge is a “navigable-in-law waterway but not actually navigated” and that the bridge location qualified for the Advance Approval category (pursuant to Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 115.70) with no permit necessary. This determination was a result of coordination with the Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District in March 2005 and November 2013 (Appendix E). Because the USCG classifies Kinney Bayou as “not actually navigated” in a location approximately 1 mile downstream of the proposed SH 200 project site, a bridge permit for the project location would not be expected. The No Build Alternative would not require a Section 9 permit.
14.5. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
Stormwater runoff from the proposed project flows into Humble Ditch and Kinney Bayou which both empty into Corpus Christi Bay. Two recreational beaches on the southern shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay are listed as Section 303(d) impaired waters; however, they are approximately 12 miles from the SH 200 project. Redfish Bay is a 303(d) listed impaired water body and is located approximately 2.7 miles east-southeast of the project site. Although the project is located within 5 miles of an impaired assessment unit (Redfish Bay), it is not within the watershed of the impaired assessment unit, therefore coordination with the TCEQ is not required. The No Build Alternative would not impact any Section 303(d) impaired waters.
Page 25 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
14.6. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
A disturbance of greater than five acres of land is anticipated during the construction of this project; therefore, coverage under the TCEQ Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Construction General Permit (TXR150000) for discharging storm water is required. This permit will be obtained by preparing an SW3P and submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the TCEQ. A copy of the NOI and a TCEQ Site Notice will be posted at the site prior to construction. Construction will abide by the Construction General Permit and the TCEQ will be notified if the operator of the project changes. No long term water quality impacts are expected as a result of this proposed project. The No Build Alternative would not require a TPDES General Construction Permit nor would it impact water quality.
14.7. Floodplains
Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management requires that federal agencies avoid adverse impacts to floodplains and avoid supporting floodplain development when there is a practicable alternative. The majority of the project site is located above the floodplain; however, approximately 3.9 acres of the project area near Kinney Bayou is within the 100-year (1% annual chance) flood hazard area (Zone AE) and approximately 7.5 acres of the project area is within the 500-year (0.2% annual chance) flood hazard area (Zone X). A FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) floodplain map for the project area is shown in Exhibit 10.
There are two location hydraulic studies that were used to determine what impacts the proposed roadway will have related to the Kinney Bayou floodplain: Flood Control Study of San Patricio County, Texas (San Patricio County Drainage District, 1987) and the FEMA Flood Insurance Study - City of Ingleside, Texas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004). In addition, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Storm Surge maps for the Corpus Christi Bay area were also consulted.
The purpose of the 1987 Flood Control Study was to address specific flooding problems within San Patricio County and to develop statistical models for a comprehensive flood control management program to assist in future planning. The 2004 FEMA Flood Insurance Study served to revise and update a previous Flood Insurance Rate Map for Ingleside for use by local and regional planners to promote sound land use and floodplain development. The location studies and NOAA Storm Surge maps were reviewed for potential impacts to the floodplain as a result of hurricane storm surges. The studies indicated that the two main issues regarding floodplains for the City of Ingleside were intense local rainfall and hurricane storm surges.
Page 26 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
There will be no longitudinal encroachment into the floodplain by the proposed SH 200 project. Only the proposed alternative includes a bridge crossing Kinney Bayou. Based on FEMA flood insurance rate maps, the base flood elevation of Kinney Bayou at the project crossing is 9.2 feet. Currently, existing box culverts in Kinney Bayou have a driving surface elevation of +10 feet mean sea level (MSL). The proposed SH 200 project bridge will span the majority of the Zone AE floodplain, replace the box culverts currently located within the floodplain, and have a finished elevation of +16 feet MSL. This action will remove a potential impairment of the floodway and add safety to vehicular crossing of the floodplain. The flood control study models indicated that removal of these culverts would result in a 100-year flood level reduction of about 2.0 feet immediately downstream of Eighth Street; however, the culvert removal would be insufficient to prevent flooding along Avenue G. The study recommended improvements at Eighth Street as well as structural improvements at a pipeline crossing downstream of those improvements, both of which have been accomplished since the study’s release. The culvert removal represents the third and final recommended improvement from the Flood Control Study for Kinney Bayou.
Natural and beneficial floodplain values will not be affected. Kinney Bayou has been consolidated and channelized for a distance of approximately 1 mile upstream, and 0.6 miles downstream which is nearly 85% of the entire length of the bayou. The City of Ingleside’s municipal wastewater treatment plant has the largest effect on this intermittent drainage; approximately 1 million gallons per day are released through Kinney Bayou as effluent wastewater. Lower reaches of the bayou become estuarine at the confluence with the intertidal zone of the Jewel Fulton Channel (Corpus Christi Bay). The confluence of effluent with the intertidal zone provides a salinity gradient that may be beneficial to estuarine and marine organisms. This gradient will not be affected by either the culvert removal or bridge construction and is expected to continue to function as it has in the past.
Measures to minimize floodplain impacts associated with the project have primarily been addressed by siting the proposed bridge in the area crossing Kinney Bayou where the culverts are currently located, as opposed to siting in other areas. This “re-use” of a crossing (and associated approaches) minimizes new floodplain impacts and also follows the recommendations of the Flood Control Study to remove the culverts.
The location studies did not evaluate or discuss replacement of the culverts with a bridge; however they both discussed the benefits of removing the culverts, which was a priority to improve the flood-plain functioning. As previously mentioned, only the preferred alternative crosses at the current culvert location and proposes to remove the culverts, therefore the preferred alternative provides the most benefit to floodplain functioning.
Page 27 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Local, state, and federal water resources and floodplain managers were consulted in July 2014 to determine if the proposed work is consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs. The Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch of the Region VI FEMA Office Mitigation Division advised that if the project is federally funded, it would need to be in compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. They also referred the inquiry to the local community floodplain administrator for review and possible permit requirements (Appendix E). The San Patricio County Floodplain and Building Coordinator in turn referred inquiries to the City of Ingleside’s floodplain administrator. The City floodplain administrator indicated that because the project will be state or federally funded, the City will issue a floodplain permit when the Elevation Certificate and plans and profiles for the bridge are submitted. The City’s floodplain administrator briefly reviewed the project and indicated that it would improve conditions within Kinney Bayou, have no negative effects on the floodplain, and have no effect on the downstream flood potential. A San Patricio County Drainage District representative was contacted regarding a Drainage District permit, who indicated that a permit would be issued when the plans and profiles are submitted, as well as a notice of construction across the District’s easement.
The bridge will be elevated above the existing culverts and will allow traffic to cross Kinney Bayou at a higher flood stage than is currently allowed. The proposed construction improvements are expected to have minimal effects on floodplain areas or drainage patterns. Removal of the culvert and replacement with a span-bridge is expected to remove an impediment which will restore the drainage potential of Kinney Bayou. The No Build Alternative would not cause any impacts to floodplains.
14.8. International Boundary and Water Commission
This project is not located within the floodplain or watershed of the Rio Grande; therefore coordination with International Boundary Water Commission is not required. The No Build Alternative would not impact any floodplains or watersheds of the Rio Grande.
14.9. Wild and Scenic Rivers
No Wild and Scenic Rivers are located in or near the project area. The Rio Grande is the only wild and scenic river in Texas. This project will not affect or involve work within the portion of the Rio Grande that is designated as a wild and scenic river.
Page 28 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
15.0 Traffic Noise
This analysis was accomplished in accordance with TxDOT’s (FHWA approved) “Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise” (2015).
Sound from highway traffic is generated primarily from a vehicle’s tires, engine and exhaust. It is commonly measured in decibels (dB). It occurs over a wide range of frequencies, however, not all frequencies are detectable by the human ear therefore an adjustment is made to the high and low frequencies to approximate the way an average person hears traffic sounds. This adjustment is called A-weighting and is expressed as "dB(A)." Also, because traffic sound levels are never constant due to the changing number, type and speed of vehicles, a single value is used to represent the average or equivalent sound level and is expressed as "Leq" (equivalent continuous noise level). A traffic noise analysis typically includes the following elements: • Identification of land use activity areas that might be impacted by traffic noise; • Determination of existing noise levels; • Prediction of future noise levels; • Identification of possible noise impacts; and • Consideration and evaluation of measures to reduce noise impacts.
The FHWA has established the following Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact would occur (Table 5).
Table 5 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
Activity Leq Category dB(A) Description of Activity Category
57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra-ordinary significance and serve an A important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the (Exterior) area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 67 B Residential (Exterior) Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care 67 centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, C playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio (Exterior) studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools , television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
Page 29 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
52 Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, D (Interior) public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A-D or F. (Exterior) Agricultural, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance F -- facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. G -- Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
A noise impact would occur when either the absolute or relative criterion is met. These criteria are as follows:
Absolute criterion: Predicted noise level at a receiver approaches, equals or exceeds the NAC. "Approach" is defined as one dB(A) below the NAC. For example: a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the noise level is predicted to be 66 dB(A) or above.
Relative criterion: Predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level at a receiver even though the predicted noise level does not approach, equal or exceed the NAC. “Substantially exceeds” is defined as more than 10 dB(A) above the NAC. For example: a noise impact would occur at a Category B residence if the existing level is 54 dB(A) and the predicted level is 65 dB(A) (11 dB(A) increase).
When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise abatement measure is any positive action taken to reduce the impact of traffic noise on an activity area.
The FHWA’s Traffic Noise Modeling (TNM) software was used to calculate existing and predicted traffic noise levels at receiver locations (Table 6 and Exhibit 14) that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to the proposed project that might be impacted by traffic noise and potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement. TNM primarily considers the number, type and speed of vehicles, highway alignment and grade, cuts, fills and natural berms, surrounding terrain features, and the locations of activity areas likely to be impacted by the associated traffic noise.
The traffic noise analysis was conducted at one receiver location identified as R1. R1 is a residential property located approximately 500 feet east of the project centerline (see Exhibit
Page 30 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
14). The existing sound level was determined using an on-site ambient reading measured by a Casella CEL Inc. model “CEL-480” sound level meter. The predicted sound level was calculated by the TNM software. As indicated in Table 6, the 2032 sound level was predicted to be less than or equal to the existing ambient sound level; therefore, this analysis indicated that the proposed project would not result in a traffic noise impact.
Table 6 - Existing and Predicted Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels
Existing 2032 NAC NAC Sound Sound Change Noise Receiver Description Level Category Level Level + [-] Impact dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
R1 Residential Property B 67 57 57 0 No
For land use activity categories, refer to Table 5. Between SH 361 and the residential property, approximately 6200 feet in a southerly direction from SH 361 is currently Category F, previously industrial developed land that has been idle and allowed to re-naturalize. Also, from the residential property to FM 1069, approximately 3100 feet in a southerly direction is currently Category F, undeveloped agricultural grazing land. There is no NAC for Category F or undeveloped land; however, to avoid noise impacts that may result from future development of properties adjacent to the project, local officials responsible for land use control programs should ensure, to the maximum extent possible, no new activities are planned or constructed along or within the following predicted (2032) noise impact contour (Table 7).
Table 7 - Land Activity Category and Predicted Noise Contours
Land Use Activity Category and Predicted Noise Contours Land Use Impact Contour Distance From Activity Category (Absolute Criterion) Right of Way Category B & C 66 dB(A) 109 feet Category E 71 dB(A) Contained within ROW limits.
Noise associated with the construction of the project is difficult to predict. Heavy machinery, the major source of noise in construction, is constantly moving in unpredictable patterns. None of the receivers are expected to be exposed to construction noise for a long duration; therefore, any extended disruption of normal activities is not expected. Provisions will be included in the plans and specifications that require the contractor to make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through abatement measures such as proper maintenance of muffler systems.
Page 31 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
A copy of the traffic noise analysis will be made available to local officials to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, future developments are planned, designed and programmed in a manner that would avoid traffic noise impacts. On the date of approval of this document (Date of Public Knowledge), TxDOT is no longer responsible for providing noise abatement for new development adjacent to the project. The No Build Alternative would not impact the existing traffic noise levels.
16.0 Air Quality
The project is located in San Patricio County, which is in an area in attainment or unclassifiable for all national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); therefore, the transportation conformity rules do not apply. The project is not located within a carbon monoxide (CO) or particulate matter (PM) nonattainment or maintenance area; therefore, a project level hot spot analysis is not required.
16.1. Traffic Air Quality Analysis
AADT for the design year 2032 is projected to be 8,800 vehicles per day (Appendix D). A prior TxDOT modeling study and previous analysis of similar projects demonstrated that it is unlikely that a carbon monoxide standard would ever be exceeded as a result of any project with an AADT below 140,000 vehicles per day. The AADT projections for the project do not exceed 140,000; therefore a carbon monoxide Traffic Air Quality Analysis is not required. The No Build Alternative would not impact the current carbon monoxide levels.
16.2. Congestion Management Process
This project is located in an area that is in attainment or unclassifiable for all NAAQS and is not in a Transportation Management Area, therefore a Congestion Management Process analysis is not required. The No Build Alternative would not impact the NAAQS.
16.3. Mobile Source Air Toxics
16.3.1. Background
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Page 32 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
(http://www.epa.gov/iris/). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.
The 2007 EPA Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Based on an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOVES2010b model, as shown in Figure 4 and Table 8, even if vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) increases by 102 percent as assumed from 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period.
Page 33 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Figure 4 - Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 – 2050 For Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using EPA’s MOVES2010b Model
Source: Table 8 below.
Note: Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors.
Table 8 - Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 – 2050 For Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using EPA’s MOVES2010b Model
Source: EPA MOVES2010b model runs conducted during May – June 2012 by FHWA.
Page 34 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of the NEPA. The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field.
16.3.2. Project-Specific MSAT Information
A qualitative analysis provides a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/research_and_analysis/mobile_s ource_air_toxics/msatemissions.pdf
For each alternative in this document, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOVES2010b model, emissions of all of the priority MSAT decrease as speed increases. The estimated VMT under Alternatives A, B, and C are nearly the same, varying by less than 3%, and because the estimated VMT for Alternative D is at least 22.7% lower than the other three Alternatives, MSAT emissions will be lowest for Alternative D. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so
Page 35 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the expanded roadway sections that would be built at the intersection of the proposed SH 200 and SH 361; as well as the intersection of the proposed SH 200 and FM 1069, under Alternatives A, B, C, and D. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-Build alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.
16.3.3. Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis
In FHWA’s view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.
The U.S. EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the IRIS, which is “a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects” (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/iris/). Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of
Page 36 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA’s Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are; cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=306).
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts – each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable.
It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282). As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#g) and the HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=395) have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
Page 37 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an “acceptable” level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA’s approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework.
Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
16.3.4. Conclusion
In this document, a qualitative MSAT assessment has been provided relative to the various alternatives of MSAT emissions and has acknowledged that all of the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated. The No Build Alternative would not impact MSAT emissions associated with highway projects.
17.0 Hazardous Materials
Information regarding hazardous materials posing potential risk or affecting the environment within the project area was obtained from a series of environmental site assessment (ESA) reports listed below:
Page 38 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Phase I ESA (Naismith Engineering Inc., 2010) Phase II ESA (Naismith Engineering Inc., 2011) Supplemental Soil and Groundwater Assessment (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2013) Supplemental Phase II ESA (Naismith Engineering, Inc., 2013)
A regulatory database search was conducted during the Phase I ESA (Naismith Engineering, Inc., 2010). The nearest facilities listed in the search results were approximately 1,500 feet from the project corridor. Therefore sites were not close enough to the project corridor to be of potential environmental concern. Table 9 summarizes the database search results for sites within 2,000 feet of the project corridor.
Table 9 - Abbreviated Summary of Regulatory Database Listing
Distance/Direction From Center of Site # Site Name Database Information on Identified Site Proposed Corridor (ft) UST Ingleside ISD Fleet refueling facility with one UST removed A1 1488 ft NNW (underground Facility from the ground. storage tank) AST Ingleside ISD Fleet refueling facility with two ASTs (2000 and A2 1535 ft NNW (aboveground Facility 3000 gallons) in use. storage tank) LPST LPST site from 1995 – No groundwater impact Ingleside City (leaking and no apparent threats or impacts to 3 1666 ft SSE Yard petroleum receptors. Final concurrence issued, case storage tank) closed. LPST site from 1999 – No groundwater impact and no apparent threats or impacts to LPST VIP Full receptors. Final concurrence issued, case B4 1961 ft E Service closed. Retail facility with four USTs removed from the UST ground. LPST site from 1999 – Assessment incomplete. LPST No apparent threats or impacts to groundwater Ingleside B5 2058 ft E receptors. Status of site is not reported. Service Retail facility with seven USTs removed from UST the ground.
It was documented during the Phase I ESA that all proposed alternatives of the project corridor crossed several hydrocarbon pipelines and traversed a former crude oil refinery and associated tank farm (formerly Humble Oil and Refining Co.). Most of the known pipelines are currently
Page 39 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 active. The refinery was active from 1927 to 1945 (Guthrie, 1986) and the tank farm continued to be operated as a crude oil station until 1996. Currently, all tanks have been removed from the site (Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, 2013). Additional investigations, including sampling of soil and groundwater, were performed due to the recognized potential for historic releases of environmental contaminants at the former refinery site, tank farm, and pipeline crossings.
The soil sampling results indicate that the TCEQ Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) (30 TAC 350) Action Levels were exceeded at several locations, thus TRRP is applicable to portions of the proposed SH 200 corridor. Action Levels are defined as the lowest applicable Tier 1 residential protective concentration level for a given chemical of concern, assuming a 0.5-acre source area and Class I groundwater (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2010). Exhibit 15 illustrates locations within the SH 200 corridor where soil and/or groundwater contaminants were found that exceeded the TRRP Action Levels. Please refer to Section 21 – Commitments for actions being planned in response to the findings of this section on hazardous materials. The No Build Alternative would not impact any existing TRRP Action Levels.
18.0 Construction Impacts
Temporary construction-related impacts to communities and area businesses could include temporary traffic detours, noise, dust and construction vehicle emissions, increased traffic on local streets and roads (to avoid the construction area), and occasionally temporary congestion on portions of major arterials approaching the construction area. As this is new construction across undeveloped lands, these impacts are expected to be minor. Impacts from these temporary activities would be offset by implementation of a Traffic Control Plan developed to provide for the safe passage of traffic with minimum inconvenience to travelers near the construction area. Contract provisions would include proposals for traffic handling, construction scheduling, detours, barricades, lights, and warning signals. Construction activities would be regularly monitored to ensure compliance.
During the construction phase of this project, temporary increases in air pollutant emissions may occur from construction activities. The primary construction-related emission is particulate matter (fugitive dust) from site preparation. This emission will be temporary in nature (only occurring during actual construction), however, the potential impacts will be minimized by using fugitive dust control measures such as covering or treating disturbed areas with dust suppression techniques, water sprinkling, covering loaded trucks, and other dust abatement controls, as appropriate.
Page 40 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
The construction activity phase of this project may generate a temporary increase in emissions (MSAT) from construction activities, equipment and related vehicles. The primary MSAT construction related emission is particulate matter from site preparation and diesel powered construction equipment and vehicles.
The Texas Emissions Reduction Plan includes incentive programs to encourage development of multi-pollutant approaches to ensure that the air in Texas is both safe to breathe and meets minimum federal standards. TxDOT encourages construction contractors to utilize this program to the fullest extent possible to minimize diesel emissions. However, considering the temporary and transient nature of construction-related emissions, as well as mitigation actions to be utilized, it is not anticipated that project construction emissions will have any significant impact on air quality in the area.
The contractor will take appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control hazardous material spills in the construction staging area. Use of construction equipment within sensitive areas will be minimized or eliminated entirely and all construction materials will be removed as soon as work schedules permit. The No Build Alternative would not cause any construction impacts.
19.0 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
In addition to the direct impacts discussed, the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Chapter V) also requires an analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts of a project’s activity. Based on the indirect impacts screening tool provided in TxDOT’s Guidance on Preparing Indirect and Cumulative Analyses (revised September 2010), it was determined that an analysis was needed.
19.1. Indirect Effects Analysis
Indirect effects are defined by the CEQ as “caused by an action and occur later in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, include ecosystems.” (40 CFR 1508.7). Three (3) categories of these indirect effects are further defined as:
Encroachment-alteration effects – the alteration of the behavior and functioning of the physical environment related to the project design features, but are separated from the project by time and/or distance.
Page 41 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Access alteration effects – also known as project-influenced effects, where changes in traffic, access, and mobility may result in changes in land use (induced growth effects).
Effects related to project-influenced development – the effects that are attributable to the induced growth itself.
Probability is important in providing a distinction between direct and indirect effects because direct effects are generally inevitable, while indirect effects are probable. The term “reasonably foreseeable” means that effects are “sufficiently likely to occur so that a person of ordinary prudence would take them into account in making a decision.” Such reasonably foreseeable effects are probable, not just possible. Further, current guidance indicated that “effects that can be classified as possible but not probable may be excluded from consideration.” This indirect impact analysis is based on the TxDOT Guidance on Preparing Indirect and Cumulative Analyses, using the following seven steps: Step 1. Scoping Step 2. Identify the Study Area’s Goals and Trends Step 3. Inventory the Study Area’s Notable Features Step 4. Identify Impact-causing Activities of Proposed Action and Alternatives Step 5. Identify Potentially Substantial Indirect Effects for Analysis Step 6. Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Results Step 7. Assess Consequences and Consider Mitigation
19.1.1. Step 1: Scoping
The two overall goals of scoping are to a) determine the level of effort and approach needed to complete the analysis, and b) determine the location and extent of the indirect impact study area.
The SH 200 project proposes to construct a new four lane roadway around the southwest side of Ingleside. This will require approximately 1.98 miles of 160-foot new ROW with four 12-foot wide travel lands and two 10-foot wide shoulders. Successful completion of the project will allow traffic to bypass the central business area of the City of Ingleside. This indirect effects analysis considered reasonably foreseeable events through the year 2020 based upon the availability of industry projections through that date from the Port of Corpus Christi Authority’s Strategic Plan (Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 2013) and “Ingleside 2020” goals as stated in the City’s Master Plan (City of Ingleside, 2010). The first step is to determine the Area of Influence (AOI) for the project.
Page 42 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
The AOI for indirect impacts was delineated to include the proposed project and the area in which it could potentially influence traffic or land development patterns. Factors considered included properties immediately surrounding the project, residential areas near the southern signalized terminus, existing roadway network, and physical barriers such as Corpus Christi Bay. The City of Ingleside’s future plans for growth and development was considered; however, based upon input from City officials and stakeholders, induced growth is not expected to occur within the AOI as a result of the project. The project AOI is illustrated in Exhibit 16.
Although the commute-shed is often an appropriate criterion to help define the AOI, the commute-shed for Ingleside is not definitively known. The nearest Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the Corpus Christi MPO which does not include Ingleside within its study area. The commute-shed for Ingleside’s industrial areas is believed to be large, and probably includes neighboring Nueces and Aransas counties as well as other counties in the region (see Table 10). Because the commute-shed may be region-wide, only the residential communities near the southern terminus of the project were included in the AOI.
Table 10 - Number of home to work trips to San Patricio County by county
Number of work trips to San Number of work trips to San County residence of commuters Patricio County, 2003 Patricio County, 2006-2010 San Patricio 14,986 16,205 Nueces 4,033 3,278 Aransas 1,361 1,103 Bee 361 206 Jim Wells 278 136 Refugio 225 178 Live Oak 140 114 Kleberg 75 27 Duval 25 15 Other 480 520 Non-San Patricio County Total 21,964 21,782 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2003, and the 2006-2010 U.S. Census America Community Survey
The AOI encompasses approximately 990 acres. Physical limits such as Corpus Christi Bay and existing main roadways were used to determine AOI boundaries. The northern boundary of the AOI is generally located at SH 361. The western and southern boundaries are delineated by existing landowner parcels adjacent to the project corridor. The eastern boundary can generally be defined as portions of the residential area which would travel on Belair Avenue and through the signalized intersection of SH 200 and FM 1069. The eastern boundary of the AOI also includes the existing FM 1069.
Page 43 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
19.1.2. Step 2: Identify the Study Area’s Goals and Trends.
Goals: The AOI is located entirely within the City of Ingleside. According to the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan (City of Ingleside, 2010), the following four community goals related to the recommendations for growth, development, and beautification of the City have been adopted: 1. Maintain and improve the quality of life, the natural environment, and man- made amenities for all citizens of Ingleside; 2. Develop a vital growing economic base for Ingleside; 3. Maintain and improve the stability of existing residential and commercial areas; 4. Encourage orderly development of new residential, commercial, and industrial properties to accommodate growth.
Since the closing of Naval Station Ingleside in 2010, city leaders have sought ways to bolster the financial and economic base of Ingleside. The City’s Department of Economic Development has increased its efforts to attract and bring new businesses as well as expand and retain existing businesses. In 2012, Occidental Petroleum Corporation acquired the former Naval Station Ingleside from the Port of Corpus Christi Authority. The property is now known as the Oxy Ingleside Energy Center. Occidental has announced plans to construct a propane export facility and is considering opportunities to move additional products through the facility. Development of this property could provide significant opportunities for growth of waterborne commerce in the Ingleside area (Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 2013).
Cheniere Energy, Inc. is an energy company primarily engaged in liquefied natural gas related businesses. Cheniere Energy, Inc. has initiated a project to develop a terminal along La Quinta Ship Channel in Ingleside which could provide new opportunities for employment and economic growth in Ingleside and the surrounding region.
The City of Ingleside is in the process of developing a master plan for enhancement and maintenance of the six public parks in the City. Goals for improving public parks include expanding Live Oak Park and constructing a multi-use youth sports complex.
City leaders also plan to revitalize the central business area (defined as the area from 8th Street to McCullough Lane on FM 1069 and from the railroad track at West Main to Avenue A on SH 361). Goals for the central business area include rehabilitated streets and sidewalks, improved pedestrian amenities, development of cultural activities, unique signage and landscaping, and improving historical structures.
Page 44 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
In order to revitalize the central business area, traffic patterns need to be changed. Currently, traffic becomes congested especially when large industrial loads travel through the intersection at SH 361 and FM 1069. Industries located near the channel often transport large pieces of equipment or machinery using large trucks and electric and other lines must be manned and raised to allow for high clearance loads. This process takes up to several hours in some instances, causing the intersection to be blocked which causes commuter traffic to re-direct onto residential streets and school zones and also disrupts the main city street. Other hazards include at-grade railroad crossings and a high incidence of crashes on FM 1069 south of SH 361. Congestion can also occur on FM 1069 during peak periods of commuter travel. Demographic data indicate that approximately 80% of people commuting through Ingleside drive alone by car, truck, or van (Table 11).
Table 11 - Commuting characteristics for the City of Ingleside
Characteristic Estimate Margin of Error No. of workers (≥16 years old) 4,393 +/- 332 Means of transportation (car, truck, or van) 91.9% +/- 2.7% Drove alone 79.8% +/- 5.3% Carpooled 12.1% +/- 5.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau An industrialized area within and immediately adjacent to the City of Ingleside is located near the project’s southern terminus. Between Welder Ranch Road and FM 1069, the proposed project corridor is located in an area zoned by the City of Ingleside for “light industrial” and “general commercial” use. A 2014 referendum by the City of Ingleside resulted in the rezoning of a large area in southeastern Ingleside from residential to industrial (City of Ingleside, 2015). While the expectations of the proposed project is not to attract new businesses or developments to Ingleside, it may benefit future development by improving safety, rerouting industrial traffic, and relieving congestion in the central business area. These benefits will also assist in improving the quality of life in Ingleside, one of the primary goals listed in the City’s Comprehensive Master Plan.
Within the last 20 years, trends for development in the proposed SH 200 corridor and adjacent areas have been static at the undeveloped stage. However, south Texas is experiencing substantial economic growth, with employment in the 12-county region known as the Coastal Bend (which includes San Patricio County) increasing at an estimated annual rate of about 4.5% (Lee, 2012). Rapid development and new businesses is attributable to oil and gas exploration and production activities associated with the Eagle Ford Shale play in Texas. Some projections
Page 45 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 estimate that Eagle Ford production and development could result in 70,000 new full-time and indirect jobs by the year 2020 (Fuller, 2012).
According to a study conducted in 2013, San Patricio County is home to 1,885 full-time Eagle Ford workers. In San Patricio County, construction, as opposed to active drilling and exploration, has been the source of direct Eagle Ford Shale economic impact. In 2013, the county experienced a total output of $647.35 million and a gross county product of $226.39 million (San Patricio Economic Development Corporation, 2014). New projects and business expansions in San Patricio County are expected to increase economic benefit of the area through 2022. San Patricio County already has a well-established and expanding industrial business community including Sherwin Alumina, Helix Energy, TPCO America, DuPont, Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd., and Occidental Petroleum Corporation (San Patricio Economic Development Corporation, 2014).
The Port of Corpus Christi, the 5th largest port by tonnage in the U.S., is located across Corpus Christi Bay from Ingleside. It is experiencing an all-time high total cargo volume and is actively enhancing current infrastructure and planning future expansions. The channel, which has been maintained at a depth of 45 feet since 1989, is now permitted and received Congressional authorization in 2007 to deepen to 52 feet (Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 2013). The La Quinta Ship Channel, which directly serves Ingleside’s industrial sites, was recently extended by 1.4 miles and deepened from an operating depth of 39 feet to 45 feet, matching the rest of the channel system (Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 2013).
Despite rapid growth in many south-central Texas towns located in Eagle Ford production areas, Ingleside has not seen the same effects in population growth. Between 2003 and 2010, the number of daily trips from Nueces County to San Patricio County declined (Texas Transportation Institute, 2010) however the total number of commuters from all counties remained relatively unchanged (see Table 10). While the Ingleside population may be growing at a slower rate than surrounding areas, data within the last four years may indicate a trend of population increase (Figure 5). The populations in San Patricio and Nueces counties are also projected to increase in the future (Table 12).
Page 46 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Figure 5 - Population trends of Ingleside, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau)
Table 12 - Population estimates and projections
Year San Patricio Co. Nueces Co. 2010 64,804 340,223 2015 66,799 354,417 2025 70,597 384,267 2035 73,223 408,802 % Change 2010-35 +13% +20% Source: Texas State Data Center The anticipated average daily traffic volumes for the years 2012, 2032, and 2042 for the proposed SH 200 route are shown in Table 13. Detailed schematics and other traffic analysis data are included in Appendix D.
Table 13 - Anticipated average daily traffic volumes of the proposed SH 200 (SH 361 to FM 1069)
Year Average Daily Traffic 2012 5,800 2032 8,800 2042 10,000 % Change 2012-42 +72.4% Source: TxDOT Corpus Christi District
19.1.3. Step 3: Inventory the Study Area’s Notable Features
The majority of the AOI consists of undeveloped land with a variety of past land uses. A smaller part of the AOI includes residential and commercial areas of Ingleside. Notable features within the AOI include endangered species (potentially); however, no critical habitats are located within the AOI. The following are the notable features in the AOI (Table 14).
Page 47 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 14 - Notable features within the AOI
Notable Feature Description Kinney Bayou Kinney Bayou is a natural drainage way which receives stormwater from the City of Ingleside and treated effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Approximately 0.6 miles downstream of the project crossing, Kinney Bayou is tidally influenced and contains National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands. The estuarine portion of Kinney Bayou (up to the Jewel Fulton Bridge) is within the AOI. Sensitive Species The AOI includes estuarine, coastal, and remnant coastal live oak-red bay habitat types which may support additional sensitive species not included in the direct impacts analysis. These additional species include Federal and State-listed endangered species such as whooping crane, piping plover and five species of sea turtles; State-listed threatened species such as reddish egret, Texas scarlet snake, and opossum pipefish; State-listed rare species such as snowy plover, American eel, and Gulf saltmarsh snake; and colonial waterbird rookeries or other nesting water birds. Sensitive Habitats NWI-mapped wetlands within the AOI include estuarine intertidal and freshwater emergent wetlands associated with Kinney Bayou and the La Quinta Ship Channel shoreline. Excavated containments and dredged material placement areas are also located within the southern part of the AOI. Remnants of the coastal live oak-red bay woodland (an imperiled habitat) are located in the Parkside Terrace residential subdivision. Parkside Terrace Subdivision This residential neighborhood is located in the southeastern quadrant of Ingleside and is accessed from FM 1069. Most residents in this subdivision are above the poverty level and the value of the approximately 400 homes is, on average, estimated at $118,000 each. Central Business Area of Ingleside A portion of Ingleside’s central business area is located along FM 1069. This area contains numerous businesses, restaurants, and a youth recreation center. Union Pacific Railroad This Class I railroad serves industries along the La Quinta Ship Channel and crosses FM 1069 roughly parallel to SH 361. La Quinta Ship Channel Shoreline This 45-foot deep channel is operated by the Port of Corpus Christi and was recently extended to serve the future La Quinta Container Terminal and Multi-purpose Dock Facility.
19.1.4. Step 4: Identify Impact-Causing Activities of Proposed Action and Alternatives
The project will construct a new road through properties with a variety of past land uses for 1.98 miles from SH 361 to FM 1069. TxDOT Guidance recommends a review of ten (10) general categories of project impact-causing activities. The results are shown in Table 15 below.
Page 48 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 15 - Impact-causing activities
Type of Activity Project Specific Activity Relevant Details Modification of Regime Removal of vegetation and A total of 38.34 acres of various wildlife habitat vegetation types will be converted to roadway. A loss of habitat for some State-listed threatened or rare species is possible. Alteration of surface drainage Culvert removal and bridge construction will have temporary impacts on Kinney Bayou banks and vegetation. Positive permanent impacts on local drainage and water flow in Kinney Bayou are expected. Land Transformation and Land transformation Land use would be transformed from Construction undeveloped (previous industrial areas and currently agricultural) lands to a roadway. New bridge The new bridge over Kinney Bayou will be taller, wider, and span a greater area than the existing bridge; therefore enhancing flow characteristics of Kinney Bayou. Noise Temporary noise and vibrations would result from construction equipment trenching, excavation, backfilling, grading, and pavement laying activities.
Resource Extraction Grading and excavation Some areas will require excavation in conjunction with vertical shifts in alignment. Hazardous material management Contaminated soils will be either removed or covered.
Processing Storage of construction Temporary storage of materials (such as materials, facilities, and heavy aggregate, concrete pipes, culverts, equipment traffic control components, road signs and construction management facilities) and heavy equipment will be necessary within the ROW.
Land Alteration Erodible materials exposed to In Kinney Bayou, drainage ditches, and surface runoff wetlands, erosion and sedimentation control will be managed with the use of BMPs that may include sand bags, silt fences, and sediment traps. Fill Fill material will be added to the roadbed, including wetland areas.
Page 49 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Type of Activity Project Specific Activity Relevant Details Resource Renewal Remediation Previously developed areas will need to be cleared and existing concrete rubble will be removed. Contaminated soils will be covered and/or removed. Revegetation In areas where vegetation is cleared and there is no new pavement, efforts to revegetate with native plants and seed stock will be made. Changes in Traffic Addition of alternative route, Construction of new signalized addition of new intersections, , intersections will have temporary and removal of industrial traffic disruption of traffic at existing through town roadways. Once construction is complete, it is anticipated that safety on these existing roadways will be increased and congestion decreased. Waste Emplacement Disposal of vegetation removed Vegetation removed for construction for construction would be hauled to a landfill for disposal Hazardous material disposal If contaminated soils are removed, the material will be disposed of properly
Chemical Treatment Fertilization Fertilizers or spray mulch may be used during post-construction in accordance with TxDOT guidelines. De-icing If necessary, inert materials (sand) may be used on bridges. Access Alteration Access created or denied by The proposed SH 200 project will construction of the new facility neither create new access points nor close existing access points to undeveloped adjacent lands. Alter travel times Upon completion of SH 200, travelers who opt to use the new roadway are expected to have reduced travel times by avoiding slower speed limits, additional signalized intersections, school zones, and at grade railroad crossings.
19.1.5. Step 5: Identify Potentially Substantial Indirect Effects for Analysis
The objective of this step is to compare potential impact-causing actions from the previous step to the list of goals and notable features of the AOI to explore the cause-and-effect relationships to determine what effects, if any, are potentially substantial and merit subsequent detailed
Page 50 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 analysis (or conversely, which effects are not potentially substantial and require no further assessment). Indirect effects may be encroachment-alteration effects, induced growth effects, and effects related to induced growth.
19.1.5.1. Encroachment-alteration effects (ecological)
The conversion of 38.34 acres of various habitats to a paved road may result in three potential encroachment-alteration effects. Roadways are known to increase the introduction and long- term establishment of invasive species (especially roadside grasses such as Kleberg bluestem and King Ranch bluestem). However, several introduced species, including Kleberg bluestem and King Ranch bluestem, were documented in 2015 as already occurring within the project corridor (see Section 13.2). Further introduction and establishment of invasive plants will be avoided or minimized by the use of vegetation BMPs and by the use of native species for landscaping and maintenance (see Section 21.0 Commitments).
Another effect of the construction of the proposed SH 200 could be a shift in species composition and distribution to favor edge or urban wildlife species over non-edge species. However, changes in species composition and distribution as a result of creating edge habitat will have a minimal impact beyond the area immediately surrounding the project corridor.
The removal of existing box culverts at the Kinney Bayou crossing will result in the loss of previously constructed cave swallow nests and could therefore change nesting patterns of a colony of cave swallows and at this location. However, culvert/nest removal will be conducted during non-nesting season to avoid impacts to active nests or actively nesting swallows (see Section 21.0 Commitments). Because of the use of BMPs and confinement of the project to a relatively small area, substantial encroachment-alteration effects are not anticipated.
19.1.5.2. Encroachment-alteration effects (socioeconomic)
Potential socioeconomic indirect effects include the following:
1. Addition of traffic lights at the intersection of Belair Avenue and FM 1069 and the intersection of SH 361 and SH 200 may slightly increase the travel time for motorists on SH 361, FM 1069, and for residents turning south from the Parkside Terrace subdivision;
2. Decrease in traffic volume, numbers of oversized loads, and traffic volume in school zones and railroad crossings will potentially improve safety for motorists and pedestrians using FM 1069;
Page 51 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
3. Decrease in traffic volume and industrial heavy loads on FM 1069 through the central business area in Ingleside, and the availability of a faster, alternative route (SH 200) would save time for travelers using both routes.
Based upon the comparison of previously described impact-causing actions with the goals and trends and notable features found within the AOI, encroachment-alteration effects related to increased safety and saving time (both socioeconomic effects) could potentially be substantial.
19.1.5.3. Induced growth effects
The primary purpose of the proposed SH 200 project is to increase safety and decrease congestion from commercial and heavy industrial traffic that currently must travel on FM 1069 through Ingleside’s central business area, and to provide a direct route to industrial areas. Although the project is located in undeveloped land, it will serve as a mainly through-traffic roadway with no new access roads or interchanges provided to the undeveloped adjacent areas. The project would not affect the overall economic and demographic conditions nor would it provide water, electrical, or wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not likely make the area any more or less attractive to developers.
The change in traffic patterns on FM 1069 could potentially help facilitate the City of Ingleside’s revitalization and rehabilitation goals for the central business area. While a change in the traffic patterns is an indirect effect of the proposed project, it would not induce growth in and of itself. Although the project would likely benefit new development in the Ingleside area (which, based on current projections and trends is expected to continue) the proposed project is not expected to induce growth. Therefore, there are no induced growth effects from this project.
19.1.5.4. Effects related to induced growth
No induced growth effects are expected therefore this step is not applicable to the analysis.
19.1.6. Step 6: Analyze Indirect Effects and Evaluate Results
The substantial indirect effects identified above include increased safety and reduced travel time for travelers through the central business area. Both of these are substantially beneficial to the community as a whole and are also closely aligned with the goals of the City of Ingleside and the purpose for constructing SH 200. As a result, these indirect effects are neither in conflict with study area goals nor would they require mitigation. Therefore, further analysis and evaluation is not necessary.
Page 52 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
19.2. Cumulative Effects Analysis
Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts “on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (local, state, or federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” According to the 2010 TxDOT Guidance, “Analysis of cumulative impacts requires that reasonably foreseeable future actions that may affect the resources being studied must be considered in the NEPA document.”
The following eight steps serve as guidelines for identifying and assessing cumulative impacts: 1. Identify the resources to consider in the analysis 2. Define the study area for each resource 3. Describe the current health and historical context for each resource 4. Identify direct and/or indirect impacts of the project that might contribute to a cumulative impact 5. Identify other reasonably foreseeable actions 6. Assess potential cumulative impacts to each resource 7. Report the results 8. Assess and discuss mitigation issues for all adverse impacts
19.2.1. Step 1: Identify the resources to consider in the analysis
The first step in a cumulative impacts analysis is to identify which resources to study. If the proposed project would not result in either direct or indirect impacts on a resource, then it cannot contribute to cumulative impacts to that resource, and no analysis of that resource is warranted. Guidance further indicates that cumulative impacts analysis should focus on the following: 1. Resources that are substantially impacted by the project, and 2. Resources that are currently in poor or declining health or at risk, even if the project impacts to those resources are small.
A review of the direct and indirect effects sections was undertaken to identify resources to consider (Table 16). As per the current TxDOT guidance, if the proposed project is determined to not have a substantial direct or indirect impact on a resource, it will not contribute to a cumulative impact on the resource. However, impacts may potentially be substantial even if the direct or indirect impact of the proposed action is minimal. The table below discusses the determination of resources to include in the cumulative impacts analysis.
Page 53 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 16 - Determination of resources to include in the cumulative impacts analysis
Resource in Carried Poor / Forward Resource Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Declining for Health? Analysis Community No direct impacts; LEP Indirect socioeconomic No No Resources populations do exist in the impacts are not in conflict project area, however the with study area goals; SH specific route is undeveloped 200 is not proposed to be a with no foreign-language signs toll road therefore no or advertisements present indirect impacts to low- income or minority populations would occur Soil Resources Removal or covering of existing Removing or covering Yes, the soils Yes hazardous materials in soils hazardous material from have been the soil would provide a impacted by beneficial indirect impact to past the ecosystem anthropogenic industrial use Cultural Resources No direct impacts; no known No NRHP-eligible sites are No No historic properties or within the AOI archaeological sites are in the project area Biological 38.34 acres of various Roadsides are typically Yes; by Yes Resources vegetation types will be colonized by non-native definition, cleared, but no special, invasive grasses; threatened and imperiled, or critical habitat is therefore, their rare species are present introduction would be an declining or at Habitat for State-listed expected effect risk threatened and rare species is Replacement of present and the project may vegetation with a paved impact some species but BMPs road creates an edge will be followed effect which could slightly Migratory birds have nested at change the long-term the project site in the past and composition and the project may impact nesting distribution of wildlife birds but BMPs will be Wildlife mortality related followed to vehicle strikes
Water Resources Wetlands may be impacted Impervious cover will be No Yes
and Water Quality but activities in jurisdictional created which could
wetlands will be permitted by increase runoff during rain USACE events Floodplain drainage will be improved by the removal of culverts and construction of a bridge over Kinney Bayou
Page 54 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Resource in Carried Poor / Forward Resource Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Declining for Health? Analysis Air Quality Potential construction phase No indirect impacts to air No No emissions quality Fugitive dust during construction
Given the criteria for the cumulative impact analysis, the resources deemed appropriate to consider include soil resources, biological resources (threatened or rare species and nesting birds), and water resources (wetlands, Kinney Bayou floodplain, and water quality). Cumulative impacts to these resources will be carried forward for analysis.
19.2.2. Step 2: Define the study area for each resource
Geographic Resource Study Areas (RSAs) were defined for each resource. All seven threatened or rare species have a range which extends over large areas in south and/or coastal Texas; none have isolated populations within the City of Ingleside or San Patricio County. Likewise, nesting birds are found throughout the region but nesting is limited temporally to breeding seasons which may differ for each species. For the purposes of this analysis, the RSA for threatened or rare species and nesting birds is defined as the Ingleside Peninsula (see Exhibit 2).
Contaminated soils are associated with the former Humble Oil Refinery and tank farm; therefore, the RSA for this resource is located within the boundaries of this former facility.
The wetlands, floodplain, and water quality to be analyzed for cumulative impacts drains into Corpus Christi Bay via Kinney Bayou or Humble Ditch and are within the North Corpus Christi Bay Watershed of the San Antonio-Nueces River Basin. Therefore, the RSA for water resources is defined as the Kinney Bayou and Humble Ditch watersheds within the Ingleside Peninsula.
The temporal resource study area boundary for all resources analyzed was set at a horizon date of 2020 due to availability of industry projections through that date from the Port of Corpus Christi Authority’s Strategic Plan (Port of Corpus Christi Authority, 2013) and “Ingleside 2020” goals as stated in the City’s Master Plan (City of Ingleside, 2010). The past temporal boundary is 1927, which is the date that Humble Oil and Refining Company established a refinery and tank farm within the contaminated soils RSA which includes the project corridor and surrounding area (Guthrie, 1986).
Page 55 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
19.2.3. Step 3: Describe the current health and historical context for each resource
19.2.3.1. Soil Resources
Hazardous materials were found in soils of the central portion of the project site during environmental site assessments. The apparent source of these contaminants is the former crude oil refinery and associated tank farm (formerly Humble Oil and Refining Co.) which was active from 1927 to 1945 (Guthrie, 1986). The tank farm continued to be operated as a crude oil station by Exxon Pipeline Company until 1996 but all tanks have since been removed from the site (Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, 2013). Prior to the closing of the refinery (in 1945), strict environmental and safety regulations were not in place. Future industrial development planned within the RSA includes transporting, refining, and exporting oil and gas products. Assuming that future industrial development will implement stricter environmental and safety standards, negative impacts to soil resource conditions should be minimized in the future.
19.2.3.2. Biological Resources
The Tier I Site Assessment determined that the project is within the range of State-listed threatened and rare species and suitable habitat is present. The species included in the Tier I determination were the plains spotted skunk, southern yellow bat, and Texas indigo snake. Additional coordination with TPWD resulted in the addition of the white-tailed hawk, Texas tortoise, Texas horned lizard, and coastal gay-feather in this analysis for consideration of potential impacts. All of the species discussed below are considered to be at risk due to their state listing status. Following are brief summaries related to current health and historical context of each species.
White-tailed hawk – Formerly extending into central Texas, this raptor is now only found in coastal and extreme southern Texas. Reasons for this species’ range constriction include invasion of brush into the white-tailed hawk’s preferred coastal grassland and savanna- chaparral habitat, industrialization, and pollution (Oberholser, 1974). White-tailed hawks are currently known on Padre and Mustang Islands and in other areas of the Coastal Bend. White- tailed hawks are currently a State-listed threatened species.
Texas horned lizard – Formerly abundant throughout Texas, this species is now considered rare in coastal areas (Linam, 2008); however, Texas horned lizards have been documented on barrier islands and in coastal areas near Ingleside in recent years. Confirmed sightings include Naval Air Station Corpus Christi (approximately 10 miles south of the project area) (Hickman et al., 2007) and Harbor Island near Aransas Pass (approximately 8 miles east of the project area)
Page 56 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
(J. Batey and L. Linam, pers. comm.). The Nature Conservancy listed the Texas horned lizard as “possible” at former Naval Station Ingleside (approximately 2 miles south of the project area) (Duran, 2006). The Texas horned lizard is currently a State-listed threatened species.
Texas tortoise – Historically this species occurred in central and south Texas but currently is found only in south-central and south Texas. Texas tortoises require about 1-6 acres of home range habitat which they maintain on a relatively permanent basis (Rose and Judd, 1975) during their life span of up to 60 years. A low reproductive rate, historic heavy exploitation by pet suppliers, and other factors have led to a severe population decline of the species, which was listed as threatened in 1977 (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2014a). Texas tortoises were observed in 2006 at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi (Hickman et al., 2007) and were listed as “possible” occurrence by The Nature Conservancy at the former Naval Station Ingleside (Duran, 2006). The Texas tortoise has also been recorded from Padre Island National Seashore, approximately 25 miles south of the project area (Jenkins and Smith, 1997). The Texas tortoise is currently a State-listed threatened species.
Coastal gay-feather – This State-listed rare plant is endemic to the Gulf Coastal Plain and is a prairie species occurring on coastal prairies of various types, from salty prairie on clay loams to upland prairie on non-saline clayey to sandy loams (Poole et al., 2007). Historically the coastal gay-feather was probably more widespread because the Coastal Bend was largely a treeless prairie; however, in the 1970s Jones (1982) classified the frequency of occurrence as only “occasional”.
Texas indigo snake – The Texas indigo snake is found from the northern coastal plain of Mexico to south central Texas (Duran, 2004). In Texas, it is found from Beeville to the Rio Grande but is diminishing along the northern edges of the range in Texas and is more common further south (Tennant, 1985). It is most often found in thornscrub and mesquite savannahs and requires moist habitats for proper shedding (such as burrows and tunnels) (Tennant, 1985). Threats to this species are predominantly habitat degradation (conversion to agriculture), habitat fragmentation, and increased interactions with human contact resulting in extermination (Tennant, 1985). The Texas indigo snake has been reported from the Padre Island National Seashore, however that specimen has not been confirmed and it is assumed to be an accidental occurrence (Duran, 2004). The Texas indigo snake is currently a State-listed threatened species.
Plains spotted skunk – The plains spotted skunk was once very common in its range but started to experience declines throughout the mid- to late 1900s due to loss and degradation of the early successional habitat it requires for cover and subsequent predation due to such loss. As of December 2012, this species is currently under review for listing as a Federal endangered or
Page 57 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 threatened species by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012). The plains spotted skunk is currently a State-listed rare species.
Southern yellow bat – Southern yellow bats are found in the southwestern states of Arizona, California and Texas extending south into Mexico and Central America. In Texas, this bat is known or has a potential presence within an 8-county area extending from San Patricio to Cameron counties. Little is known of their life span or feeding habits. This bat roosts in dead palm tree fronds, historically in palm groves along the Rio Grande, but more recently has been expanding its range north due to landscaping use of ornamental palm trees (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2014b). Overall population declines have been due to the superficial practice of removing dead fronds from trees and use of pesticides for mosquito control (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2014b). Southern yellow bats are currently listed as a State- listed threatened species.
19.2.3.3. Water Resources
Wetlands - Wetlands within the SH 200 project site may be a result of past land use practices that created low areas that now hold water. Above-ground storage tanks and excavated man- made structures are visible in historical aerial photographs within the areas that have been identified as wetlands. Wetlands in the SH 200 ROW may be directly and permanently impacted by being filled and indirect impacts could occur to drainage from runoff from impervious road surfaces.
Floodplain and Water Quality – The project is within the North Corpus Christi Bay Watershed of the San Antonio-Nueces River Basin. Within the AOI, water drains into Corpus Christi Bay via Kinney Bayou, a stream that is subject to USACE jurisdiction. Kinney Bayou is a natural (but excavated and maintained) drainage way which receives stormwater from the City of Ingleside and (since the 1980s) receives treated effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant. A new bridge will span Kinney Bayou. Removal of the existing culverts in Kinney Bayou is expected to improve water quality by removing the “bottleneck” in the Bayou caused by the culverts which during flooding may be causing erosion to the stream banks. This is expected to improve the drainage potential of Kinney Bayou, improve the habitat, and benefit aquatic wildlife resources in the project area and in the downstream areas of the AOI.
19.2.4. Step 4: Identify direct and indirect impacts of the project that might contribute to a cumulative impact
A summary of potential direct and indirect impacts that could contribute to cumulative impacts is provided by resource in Table 16 (in Step 1). Removal of hazardous materials from the
Page 58 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 project area would result in a beneficial indirect impact. Removing contaminated soil will reduce the risks to worker safety and improve ecological health of the area.
Direct impacts to biological resources would include loss of habitat (38.34 acres) some of which could be used by threatened and rare species. Direct impacts to protected nesting birds are less likely because surveys and avoidance measures will be implemented during the construction phase to prevent direct harm to active nests and nesting birds. The majority of potential direct impacts to sensitive species would be addressed through implementation of BMPs (Texas Department of Transportation, 2013).
If wetlands within the project corridor are found to be jurisdictional (a USACE determination is pending), then permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. would occur during construction of the proposed highway. Direct impacts to the Kinney Bayou floodplain include improvement of floodplain functioning due to the removal of existing culverts. The creation of impervious cover as a result of construction of the proposed highway may cause the indirect impact of potentially increased storm water runoff within the watershed. During construction, impacts to water quality will be avoided through the implementation of the SW3P.
All described indirect impacts were analyzed and were determined to be insubstantial or in agreement with study area goals.
19.2.5. Step 5: Identify other reasonably foreseeable future effects
This step identifies other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis, focusing on actions or developments by others that are independent of the proposed action. Reasonably foreseeable actions within the 2020 timeframe are considered in the analysis. Information regarding reasonably foreseeable future actions was obtained through review of adopted City plans, the Port of Corpus Christi Strategic Plan, and consultation with individuals with expertise in the study area. Reasonably foreseeable future actions by others are divided into three main categories: transportation projects, industrial development, and Ingleside development. Table 17 contains a list of projects that are currently under construction or are planned for future construction.
Page 59 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Table 17 - Current or planned development projects in the Ingleside area (future foreseeable actions).
Current or Planned Status Location Description Development Project
Transportation Projects
The 1,114-acre site will accommodate a multi- South of Gregory at the Infrastructure and La Quinta Container modal facility accessible terminus of the planned support elements are Terminal and Multi- by ship channels, extension of the La Quinta projected to be Purpose Dock Facility highways, and railroads. Ship Channel completed by 2020 The dock will be 3,800 feet in length.
A public-private Industrial area along the La partnership between the A grant was awarded Quinta Ship Channel; multiple three Class I railroads and in 2012 to partially railroad lines are planned to La Quinta Rail Line the Port of Corpus Christi fund the rail line and access the La Quinta Container has formed to construct project planning is Terminal and Multi-purpose multiple rail lines to the currently underway. Dock Facility new La Quinta Terminal.
Industrial Development
Corpus Christi The Corpus Christi Liquefaction filed the Liquefaction project is a Federal Energy Cheniere Energy, Inc. Along the La Quinta Ship liquefied natural gas Regulatory (Corpus Christi Channel in Ingleside’s export terminal with a Commission’s (FERC) Liquefaction) industrial area new pipeline serving the application in 2012. site also proposed. Project in service date is projected for 2019.
Plans for the Oxy Occidental purchased Ingleside Energy Center the property in 2012. are to construct a As of 2014, the center Occidental Petroleum Former Naval Station Ingleside propane export facility. began accepting berth Corp. property; 915 acre site south The facility may also applications to the (Oxy Ingleside Energy of Ingleside on Corpus Christi include other additional marine terminal until Center) Bay. products and services the long term such as storage of crude objectives of the oil, condensate, or property are in place. refined products.
Page 60 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Current or Planned Status Location Description Development Project In addition to the existing liquid bulk marine terminal on the La Quinta North of FM 1069 and west of Ship Channel, Flint Hills Flint Hills Resources Status unknown. FM 2725 Resources has purchased an additional 663 acres to expand oil and gas related operations. Pipe production facility First phase completed scheduled to in March 2014, second TPCO America East of Gregory, on SH 361 remanufacture 500,000 phase currently in tons of pipe per year. progress. International steel making and processing facility will convert pre- Construction began in La Quinta Ship Channel, on 500 processed iron oxide Voestalpine Texas 2014, expected to be acres near Portland, Texas pellets into highly operational in 2016. metalized iron in the form of hot briquetted iron. Ingleside Development
Strategic Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in Plans for this City park 2014 and an Southeastern Ingleside, east include an addition of 40 application for grant Live Oak Park Expansion of FM 1069 acres and construction of funding has been a multi-use youth sports submitted. Expansion complex. is planned to occur over the next 10 years.
19.2.6. Step 6: Identify and assess potential cumulative impacts
This step focuses on the proposed SH 200’s incremental effect on the long-term sustainability of the area’s resources, taking into account the reasonably foreseeable future actions, and determining if the collective impacts might amount to a significant cumulative impact.
19.2.6.1. Soil Resources
After the oil and gas industry arrived to the area in the early 20th century, the environment was impacted by the release of contaminants into the soil and groundwater. The proposed SH 200
Page 61 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200 corridor is not currently undergoing development and has been idle for several years. Future industrial development related to transporting, refining, and exporting oil and gas products is planned within the Ingleside Peninsula RSA and may increase the potential for hazardous material contamination. However, while impacts have occurred in the past, stricter environmental and safety standards will reduce negative impacts related to future industrial development.
19.2.6.2. Biological Resources
Common native habitats occurring historically within the Ingleside Peninsula include coastal prairie, Tamaulipan thornscrub, and live oak woodlands (Jones, 1982). Population growth, the arrival of a military base, and oil and gas industry development within the Ingleside area impacted biological resources by clearing the native vegetation and introducing invasive plants. Native habitats still remain throughout the Ingleside Peninsula (see Section 13.1), but some areas are fragmented, threatened by the presence of exotic and/or invasive plants, and/or have been impacted by hazardous material contamination. Future foreseeable actions include additional oil and gas development along the La Quinta Ship Channel which will likely result in additional loss or fragmentation of existing habitat within the Ingleside Peninsula.
Cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions have occurred and will continue to occur to biological resources (i.e., habitat, wildlife species, and nesting birds). These cumulative impacts may cause range contractions at the local level, loss of the minimum quantity or quality of breeding/nesting habitat required to sustain viable populations, increased edge effect that favors some species of wildlife over others, and further introduction and establishment of exotic and/or invasive vegetation. These cumulative impacts will likely occur regardless of whether or not the proposed project is built.
19.2.6.3. Water Resources
Drainage patterns within the Humble Ditch and Kinney Bayou watersheds were altered approximately 30 years ago. Between 1988 and 1990, a segment of Humble Ditch was re- routed around new DMPAs constructed in association with Naval Station Ingleside (see Exhibits 10 and 11 which show the original and re-routed segment of Humble Ditch). The DMPAs are currently classified by the NWI as excavated wetlands. Kinney Bayou is a natural drainage but in 1985 it began receiving supplemental freshwater from the City of Ingleside via municipal stormwater and treated effluent. Kinney Bayou is currently an excavated and maintained stream which empties into Corpus Christi Bay.
Page 62 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Construction of SH 200 would require the permanent filling of wetlands and other low areas within the project corridor that are serving as functional wetlands. Post-construction water quality impacts to the watershed could also potentially include increased runoff during rain events due to increased impervious cover (road surface) on the landscape. Beneficial impacts to the Kinney Bayou floodplain would be expected due to the removal of box culverts at the bridge over Kinney Bayou, which would improve water flow during rain or storm events. Wetlands currently within the Kinney Bayou watershed could also be impacted by future development planned within the area.
19.2.7. Step 7: Report the results
This analysis has taken into consideration historical actions, current health of resources, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and has determined that the proposed construction of SH 200 would not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts to soil resources (which are expected to be positively impacted by the project) or water resources (which will be protected by the USACE’s “no net loss” policy for wetlands, Section 401 of the CWA, and other laws).
Cumulative impacts to biological resources could be substantial if reasonably foreseeable future actions occur. This is due primarily to habitat degradation caused by past, present, and future development in the Ingleside Peninsula. Future foreseeable actions (listed in Table 17) are planned for two general areas in the Ingleside Peninsula RSA; the live oak woodlands located east of FM 1069 and the La Quinta Ship Channel/Corpus Christi Bay shorelines. No critical habitat for endangered species has been designated within the RSA and many of the species which have occurred in past have been extirpated from the region (such as the Gulf Coast jaguarundi). Potential cumulative impacts to endangered species (such as marine species) will be prevented by the enforcement of Endangered Species Act provisions. Although cumulative impacts could be substantial to biological resources, existing federal regulations will protect threatened and endangered species (Endangered Species Act) and nesting birds (MBTA) and will prevent the overall decline and loss of listed species.
In addition to federal and state regulations, local recognition of natural resource values should increase in the Ingleside community and serve to protect them to some degree. For example, Live Oak Park is listed in the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail, as designated by TPWD (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2014c), and bird-watching contributes to the tourism industry and provides recreation for local citizens throughout the Coastal Bend (McCorkle, 2012). A community’s realization of the economic and aesthetic values of its natural resources helps safeguard those resources in the future.
Page 63 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Although long-term cumulative impacts may be substantial to biological resources within the Ingleside Peninsula, the construction of the proposed project would neither significantly contribute to these impacts nor would the absence of the proposed project prevent substantial cumulative impacts in this area.
19.2.8. Step 8: Assess the need for mitigation
An analysis of the SH 200 project has resulted in a finding of no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the project corridor, AOI, or RSAs. Direct impacts to protected wildlife (threatened species and nesting birds) will be avoided with implementation of BMPs (Texas Department of Transportation, 2013); therefore, mitigation would not be necessary.
Mitigation will be required if the USACE determines that more than 0.10 acres of the 1.62 acres of wetlands located within the proposed ROW are jurisdictional. All mitigation will be implemented in accordance with USACE requirements. Should wetland mitigation be required, additional right-of-way may need to be acquired in order to construct mitigation adjacent to the project to achieve “on-site, in-kind” mitigation if required by the USACE. However, due to resource agency concerns in the Ingleside Peninsula area, consideration may also be given to locating mitigation projects within imperiled, unique, or otherwise ecologically important habitats within the same watershed but off-site. The City of Ingleside, as the project sponsor, may have opportunities to accomplish mitigation by preservation/enhancement of sections of the imperiled coastal live oak-red bay woodland/wetland mosaics. These woodland/wetland complexes function as essential habitat for protected species of wildlife, migratory bird habitat, and are ecologically diverse and important habitat. This particular habitat has been identified by USFWS as needing preservation in this area, and may provide a better mitigation opportunity for the project. If impacts to the Waters of the U.S. occur over 0.10 acres, then a mitigation plan can be determined during USACE permitting, as needed.
20.0 Permits/Agency Coordination
20.1. USACE
Coordination meetings with the USACE were held March 4 and June 15, 2015. During the March meeting, the USACE supervisor concurred that Kinney Bayou is a Section 404 jurisdictional area at the proposed SH 200 bridge location. A jurisdictional determination from the USACE regarding potential Section 404 permitting for the wetlands located between Stations 40+00 and 51+00, Kinney Bayou, and the wetlands located between Stations 94+00 and 99+00 is pending. If required, pre-construction notification (PCN) or individual permit application will be submitted to the USACE as appropriate. Depending upon the findings of the USACE, one of the following outcomes relative to USACE permitting requirements may occur:
Page 64 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
1) No permit required; 2) Regional General Permit; 3) Nationwide Permit (#14); 4) Letter of Permission; or 5) Individual Permit.
20.2. TCEQ (TPDES, NOI, SW3P)
The project is required to comply with TCEQ’s TPDES General Permit for construction storm water runoff. An NOI will be submitted and an SW3P will be developed and filed on behalf of the City of Ingleside to the TCEQ prior to the beginning of construction. Bridge or culvert protection barriers at all locations will be utilized during construction and the SW3P will be maintained until construction and final stabilization is complete.
20.3. TPWD
In accordance with the September 1, 2013 Memorandum of Understanding with the TPWD (TAC Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter G) coordination was initiated in December 2013. A Tier I Site Assessment and report (which included EMST Mapper Report, Habitat Impact Summary, and habitat photos) was conducted in March 2014 (Appendix E). Results of the TXNDD inquiry are included in Appendix E. Species included in TPWD coordination include the plains spotted skunk, southern yellow bat, Texas indigo snake, white-tailed hawk, Texas horned lizard, Texas tortoise, and coastal gay-feather. Efforts will be made to avoid harming these species during construction, including, but not limited to, notes in construction plans indicating potential presence of these species and to avoid harming them if encountered, and briefing contractors on the species’ appearance and habitat preferences prior to construction. Further guidance on BMPs for protecting these species can be found in Section 21.0 Commitments. TPWD provided comments on the project on April 28, 2014 and TxDOT responded with an email dated April 29, 2014. Copies are included in Appendix E. Additional coordination with TPWD was completed on August 8, 2014 and July 21, 2015 (see Appendix E).
21.0 Commitments
The following environmental commitments have been outlined in preceding sections of this document and will be included in the Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments (EPIC) sheet as part of the construction plans, specifications, and estimates:
An NOI will be filed to the TCEQ prior to beginning construction in compliance with the TPDES General Permit requirements. The NOI will state that a SW3P has been
Page 65 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
developed for construction runoff. Bridge or culvert protection barriers at all locations will be utilized during construction and the SW3P will be maintained until construction and final stabilization is complete.
In the event that unanticipated archaeological deposits are encountered during construction, work in the immediate area will cease, and TXDOT archaeological staff will be contacted to initiate post-review discovery procedures (THC).
If necessary, a Section 404 permit application will be submitted to the USACE for work located in Kinney Bayou and wetlands between Stations 40-51 and 94-99 (pending USACE determinations).
The project will comply with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation requirements for plan submittal prior to the start of construction and field inspections when the work is completed to ensure compliance with ADA accessibility standards.
During construction, efforts will be made to avoid introduction and spread of invasive species. In particular, the spread of Brazilian peppertree through construction activities must be avoided and specimens found near Station 45 and other parts of the ROW must be removed. All disturbed areas will be vegetated according to TxDOT specifications as soon as it becomes practicable in accordance with the SW3P. In accordance with Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species, the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping, the TxDOT/TPWD Vegetation and Invasive Species BMPs, and the FHWA guidance on invasive species (Federal Highway Administration, 1999), all revegetation will, to the extent practicable, use only native species.
Several protected species may be present within the project area (see Table 18); therefore, corresponding TxDOT/TPWD BMPs will be implemented (Texas Department of Transportation, 2013).
Table 18 - Possible impacted species and corresponding guidelines and TxDOT-TPWD BMPs to be implemented
Species Status (State) Guidelines/TxDOT-TPWD BMPs* White-tailed hawk Threatened Nesting Bird Survey, Bird BMP Plains spotted skunk Rare Plains Spotted Skunk BMP Southern yellow bat Threatened Bridge Bat BMP Cave/Cliff Bat BMP Tree Bat BMP Texas horned lizard Threatened Texas Horned Lizard BMP Texas indigo snake Threatened Texas Indigo Snake BMP Texas tortoise Threatened Texas Tortoise BMP
*Descriptions of BMPs: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/300-01-pa.pdf (Texas Department of Transportation, 2013).
Page 66 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, tree trimming and other activities that may disturb breeding birds will be done in the non-breeding season (September- February). If work must be performed during the breeding season, the Contractor shall conduct a survey of the right of way to determine if bird nests are present. In the event that active nests are encountered on site during construction, the Contractor shall notify the Project Engineer and measures shall be taken to avoid disturbance of these birds, their occupied nest, eggs, and/or young, in accordance with the MBTA. Non-nesting birds will be allowed to escape the area before mobilizing equipment or beginning work. Phasing of work during construction may be necessary to stay in compliance with the MBTA. The Contractor can discuss other preventative measures with the Project Engineer and/or District Environmental Staff.
In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and USACE Nationwide Permit General Conditions, removal of the existing culverts at Kinney Bayou should be done outside of the cave swallow nesting season due to the presence of cave swallows and their nests at this location. Cave swallows may nest between March and early September, therefore the culverts must be removed October-February.
A tree survey will be completed within the project corridor before construction in accordance with the City of Ingleside’s Tree Ordinance. The ordinance prohibits the removal of large (trunk diameter greater than 6 inches at breast height) protected trees (oak, cedar elm, hackberry, or honey mesquite) without a permit.
Construction plans and profiles will be submitted to the San Patricio County Drainage District and the City of Ingleside floodplain administrator prior to work on Kinney Bayou as it is regulated by the SPCDD and is within the 100-year flood zone.
Any hazardous materials and/or petroleum contamination encountered during construction within the proposed TXDOT ROW of the SH200 corridor will be handled according to applicable Federal and State regulations and managed in accordance with a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) and Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) per TxDOT Standard Specifications. These plans will include procedures designed to protect nearby public and construction workers from dust and vapor emissions during road construction activities in the proposed TxDOT ROW.
The former refinery site and the property adjacent to the SH 200 corridor should be considered as a prime candidate for development in accordance with the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, which is a general concept supported by the TCEQ, EPA, TxDOT, and the FHWA. However, TxDOT’s level of commitment is not defined at
Page 67 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
this time and would be defined by interagency agreements that would be negotiated as part of the project development. Results of the existing soil and groundwater assessments indicate that further assessment and possibly remedial action may be required in accordance with TRRP protocols. A summary is provided below of tasks that may be required during property development: 1. Conduct an Affected Property and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2. Evaluate the desired remedial strategies available under TRRP (i.e. Standard A or Standard B), and prepare a remedial action plan if appropriate. 3. Ensure that proper waste characterization is performed prior to any materials being removed from the site.
22.0 Public Involvement
Public Involvement/outreach was conducted in a manner so that all interested parties were able to provide both oral and written comments concerning the project, as well as having access to the project in compliance with Executive Order 13166 regarding LEP communities.
The Local Redevelopment Authority met with several local municipalities in late 2008, with positive feedback from all regarding the project. The City met with several congressmen and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in early 2009 and received no opposition to the project. The City met with TxDOT, Port of Corpus Christi, USACE, and local chambers through 2009-2010 and more recently with TxDOT in early and mid-2013. No opposition to the project was voiced.
A public meeting was held on September 15, 2010 at the Humble Community Center in Ingleside and a total of 34 people attended. Paid notices were run in the Ingleside Index on September 1, 8, and 15, 2010. Notices were run in the Coastal Bend Herald on September 2 and 9, 2010. Media notices were sent to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Ingleside Index, Aransas Pass Progress, Coastal Bend Herald, and San Patricio County News. Notices were mailed September 3, 2010 to a list of 90 property owners and individuals identified as likely to have an interest in the proposed highway project. A handout was provided to the attendees and four exhibit boards including the anticipated schedule for the environmental review process, an area location map, a drawing showing a proposed preliminary route superimposed on a 2009 aerial, and a portion of the same drawing superimposed on a 1938 aerial of the former Humble Refinery. A presentation outlining the proposed action and the opportunities for public involvement during the planning process was conducted. Subjects/concerns that arose during the meeting:
Will drainage be looked at during the design process;
Page 68 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Will traffic signals be recommended at the points where two connectors intersect with the proposed new SH 200 main roadway; Where would the funding to purchase a right-of-way come from; What method was being used to develop right-of-way costs; How many parcels of land are likely to be donated and how many will require purchase; School board approved additional environmental investigations on property in the corridor formerly owned by the school district; Will the Mustang Drive extension be open as a through street or closed except when high school football games were going on; Consider drainage issues along FM 1069 near the proposed corridor intersection; Clarification of the placement of the FM 1069 intersection; and Space requirements for the free-flow right turn lane and deceleration lanes at intersections.
All attendees were in favor of the project and had no additional concerns by the conclusion of the meeting. No written comments were received.
A second public meeting was held on March 8, 2011 at the Ingleside City Hall. Paid notices were run in the Ingleside Index on Feb 23 and March 2, 2011. Notices were run in the Coastal Bend Herald on Feb 24 and March 2, 2011. Media notices were sent to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Ingleside Index, Aransas Pass Progress, Coastal Bend Herald, and San Patricio County News. Mail notices were sent February 22, 2011, to a mailing list of 97 property owners and individuals identified as likely to have an interest in the proposed highway project. Notice was provided on the website and by email to individuals who provided email addresses at the first public meeting and to a number of area public officials. A handout was provided to attendees and three exhibits were on display including a large printout of the proposed schematic design following the initially preferred route and two exhibits which showed the new preliminary route superimposed on an aerial from 2009 and an aerial from 1938. Another presentation outlining the proposed action, progress that has been made on assessing environmental issues, scheduling, and opportunities for public involvement during the planning process was made. Subjects/Concerns that arose during the meeting:
Concern about the legacy environmental issues on the Humble Refinery site, particularly the question of funding any measures needed to deal with possible contamination on property formerly owned by the Ingleside Independent School District; Whether local taxpayers might have to pay the cost of addressing environmental issues What state funding might be available; and
Page 69 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
The status of continuing funding for the environmental assessment and schematic design process.
All attendees were in favor of the project and had no additional concerns by the conclusion of the meeting. No written comments were received.
In accordance with 43 TAC 2.107, a public hearing must be held after the environmental document is approved for public disclosure by TxDOT, and is required for a project that constructs a new facility on a new location.
23.0 References
Alvarez, E.C. and R. Plocheck, eds. 2010. Texas Almanac 2010-2011. The Texas State Historical Association, Denton.
Billings, R.F. 2014. The invasive Brazilian pepper-tree threatens Texas’ coastal habitats. Texas A&M Forest Service. http://texasinvasives.org/resources/publications/TFS_Brazilian_Pepper.pdf (accessed 7 September 2014).
City of Ingleside. 2009. Major employers. http://inglesidetx.gov/ismajoremployers.cfm (accessed 8 September 2014).
City of Ingleside. 2010. Ingleside Comprehensive Master Plan. http://www.inglesidetx.gov/userfiles/file/Building_Dept/Res%20-%201005.pdf (accessed 2 August 2014).
City of Ingleside. 2015. City of Ingleside Maps. http://www.inglesidetx.gov/Maps.cfm (accessed 22 May 2015).
Conestoga-Rovers and Associates. 2013. Supplemental Soil and Groundwater Assessment – 2012: ExxonMobil Environmental Services Former Crude
Holding Station. Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas. OCP No. 04-4822.
Duran, C.M. 2004. An inventory of reptiles and amphibians of Padre Island National Seashore, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, and Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site. National Park Service agreement number H5028-01-0268, Texas Conservation Data Center, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, Texas.
Duran, C.M. 2006. An Animal Inventory of Naval Station Ingleside. The Nature Conservancy. 26pp.
Page 70 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004. Flood Insurance Study, City of Ingleside, Texas, San Patricio County. Flood Insurance Study Number 485480V000A
Federal Highway Administration. 1996. Community Impact Assessment Handbook. http://www.cutr.usf.edu/programs/pcm/files/CIA_handbook.pdf (accessed 2 August 2014).
Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Wildlife and Habitat, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Invasive Species. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/wildlife/inv_guid.asp (accessed 2 August 2014).
Fuller, J. 2012. Eagle Ford has massive impact on Coastal Bend economy. Business Climate, Coastal Bend of Texas. http://www.businessclimate.com/corpus-christi-tx-economic- development/eagle-ford-has-massive-impact-coastal-bend-economy (accessed 2 August 2014).
Government Printing Office. 1999. Presidential Documents; Executive Order 13112. Invasive Species. Federal Register 64(25):6183-6186.
Guthrie, K. 1986. The History of San Patricio County. Nortex Press, Austin, Texas.
Hickman, G.C., A.S. Baxter, and H.T. Gallo. 2007. Species Inventory Update at NAS Corpus Christi, Texas. Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. 121pp.
Jenkins, K.V. and E.H. Smith. 1997. Baseline Evaluation of the Natural Resources of Mustang Island State Park, Nueces County, Texas. Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. 167pp.
Jones, F.B. 1982. Flora of the Texas Coastal Bend. Rob and Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, TX.
Lee, J. 2012. Coastal Bend Regional Growth: How Much is Regional? Corpus Christi and Coastal Bend Economic Pulse, No. 4, College of Business and EDA University Center, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
Linam, L.A.J. 2008. Texas Horned Lizard Watch, 10-year Summary Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. PWD RP W7000-1442.
McCorkle, R. 2012. “Birdiest Cities.” August/September 2012. Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine.
Naismith Engineering, Inc. 2009. Ingleside Industrial Highway Corridor Study Report and Addendum 1.
Page 71 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Naismith Engineering, Inc. 2010. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Proposed Ingleside Industrial Corridor.
Naismith Engineering, Inc. 2011. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: Ingleside Industrial Corridor.
Naismith Engineering, Inc. 2013. Supplemental Data Report – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: Ingleside Industrial Corridor (State Highway 200).
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: a guide for federal action agencies. Version 1. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/preparingefhassessments.pdf (accessed 5 December 2014).
NatureServe. 2001. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes of Texas. NatureServe/ABI, Arlington, VA, and NatureServe-South Community Ecology Group, Durham, NC.
Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas, Vol. I. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Poole, J.M., W.R. Carr, D.M. Price, and J.R. Singhurst. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Port of Corpus Christi Authority. 2013. Strategic Plan 2014-2020. Port of Corpus Christi.
Riley, K.A. 2014. Ingleside referendum case may continue for another round in appellate court, reports indicate. The Coastal Bend Herald, August 14, 2014, Vol. 26 No. 33.
Rose, F.L. and F.W. Judd. 1975. Activity and home range size of the Texas tortoise, Gopherus berlandieri, in South Texas. Herpetologica 31(4):448-456.
San Patricio County Drainage District. 1987. Flood Control Study San Patricio County, Texas.
San Patricio Economic Development Corporation. 2014. Area Industry and Eagle Ford Shale. http://www.sanpatricioedc.com/ (accessed 1 September 2014).
Tennant, Alan. 1985. A Field Guide to Texas Snakes. Houston: Gulf Publishing. 260pp.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2010. Determining which releases are subject to TRRP. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/remediation/trrp/releasesTRRPrev.pdf (accessed 7 September 2014).
Page 72 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM Environmental Assessment – SH 200
Texas Department of Transportation. 2011. Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/730-02-gui.pdf (accessed 2 Aug 2014).
Texas Department of Transportation. 2013. Best Management Practices Programmatic Agreement. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/300-01-pa.pdf (accessed 2 August 2014).
Texas Gulf Region Cooperative Weed Management Association. 2014. Invasives of Texas. http://www.texasinvasives.org/professionals/gulfregion.php (accessed 1 July 2014).
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2014a. Texas Tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri). http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/txtort/ (accessed 7 August 2014).
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2014b. Southern yellow bat (Lasiurus ega). http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/syellow/ (accessed 22 August 2014). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2014c. Great Texas Coastal Birding Trails, Central Texas Coast, Aransas Loop. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wildlife/wildlife- trails/coastal/central/aransas-loop (accessed 22 August 2014).
Texas Transportation Institute. 2010. Updated Regional Public Transportation Coordination Plan 2011 for the Coastal Bend Region, Transportation Inventory & Needs and Gaps Assessment. Texas A&M University System, College Station.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2014. Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm (accessed 7 July 2014).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2015. Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Federal Register 80(14):3236-3237.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the prairie gray fox, the plains spotted skunk, and a distinct population segment of the Mearn’s eastern cottontail in east-central Illinois and western Indiana as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register 77(233):71759-71771.
Page 73 Print Date: 7/22/2015 4:39 PM TAFT
GREGORY ARANSAS PASS
TO GREGORYSH 361
PORTLAND
INGLESIDE,TEXAS
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT LOCATION
TEXAS
LIVE PROJECT OAK SAN PATRICIO LOCATION
JIM DUVAL WELLS NUECES
KLEBERG EXHIBIT 1 BROOKS JIM HOGGS KENEDY LOCATION MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
COUNTY BOUNDARIES Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 1 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 6/27/14 0 Of
30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT 3A PRIMARY CORRIDOR (4-LANE) FINAL PHASE PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 4 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 5/21/2015 0 Of 30 15 0 30 60
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
EXHIBIT 3B PRIMARY CORRIDOR (2-LANE) INTERIM PHASE PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 4 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 5/21/2015 0 Of PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY200 PROPOSED CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE C PROPOSED CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE B PROPOSED CORRIDOR R.O.W. KIEWIT PROPOSED CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE D OIL &GAS RELIANT MIRCOVICH PROPERTY HELIX Checked By: Drawn By: MAP OFSTATEHIGHWAY 200ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE A AN MF EXXON PIPELINE WELDER PROPERTY EXPRESS MIDSTREAM COMPANY SERVICES, LLC CAMPUS LOCATION PROPOSED STATEHIGHWAY 200 Project No.: Appr. By: HIGH SCHOOL PROPOSED CORRIDOR
ALT B ALTERNATIVE SH 361 8770 TES INGLESIDE, TEXAS EXHIBIT 4
Date: Scale: MUSTANG AVE. MUSTANG 1/20/15 AS SHOWN
FM 1069
AVE. B ST. WACO
AMARILLO ST. AMARILLO Rev.: Dwg. File: ST. HUMBLE CITY OFINGLESIDE 0 8770-FIG 3 1500 Of Sheet GRAPHIC SCALEINFEET (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) LEGEND: CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE D- CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE C- CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVEB- CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVEA- 750 0 1500 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 PROPOSED 2-LANE RIGHT-TURN LANE PROPOSED SIGNALIZED AT-GRADE INTERSECTION Checked By: Drawn By: AN MF MAP OF NORTHERN INTERSECTION PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 PROPOSED Project No.: Appr. By: 8770 TES INGLESIDE, TEXAS 14' LEFT-TURN LANE PROPOSED EXHIBIT 5 Date: Scale: 6/27/14 AS SHOWN Rev.: Dwg. File: 0 8770-FIG 5 12' ACCELERATION LANE PROPOSED Of Sheet
LEGEND SH 361 SH PROPOSED HIGHWAY EXISTING HIGHWAY PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 PROPOSED SIGNALIZED AT-GRADE INTERSECTION Checked By: Drawn By: AN MF MAP OF SOUTHERN INTERSECTON PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 PROPOSED Project No.: Appr. By: 8770 TES INGLESIDE, TEXAS EXHIBIT 6 Date: Scale: 6/27/14 AS SHOWN Rev.: Dwg. File: FM 1069 0 8770-FIG 6 Of Sheet BELAIR BOULEVARD E
N
S
EXHIBIT 7A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR KINNEY BAYOU BRIDGE PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 7 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 1/5/15 0 Of EXHIBIT 7B PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR KINNEY BAYOU BRIDGE PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 7 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 9/8/14 0 Of STA 0+00 SH 361
STA 1+00
STA 5+00
RELIANT STA 10+00 OIL & GAS
STA 15+00 HUMBLE ST. EXPRESS MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LLC STA 20+00 AMARILLO ST.
STA 25+00 WACO ST.
STA 30+00 MUSTANG AVE. HIGH SCHOOL STA 35+00 CAMPUS LOCATION
CITY OF INGLESIDE
PROPOSED STA 40+00 STATE HIGHWAY 200
STA 45+00
AVE. B STA 50+00 EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY LEGEND STA 55+00
PROPERTY BOUNDARY STA 60+00 PROPOSED HIGHWAY
MIRCOVICHSTA 65+00 PROPERTY STA 70+00
STA 75+00 HELIX
STA 80+00
STA 85+00
STA 90+00 FM 1069 STA 95+00
STA 104+39
STA 100+00
WELDER PROPERTY
KIEWIT
EXHIBIT 8 PROPERTY BOUNDARY MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet MF TES AS SHOWN 8770-FIG 8 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: AN 8770 6/27/14 0 Of Legend 0 250 500 Feet : Proposed SH 200
Proposed State Highway 200
Express Midstream Services, LLC
City of Ingleside
Lagoon
Exxon Pipeline Company
Excavated Impoundment
EXHIBIT 9 1938 HISTORICAL AERIAL PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS 0 500 1,000 Legend Feet : National Hydrography Data Humble Ditch Re-Route Flood Plain Elevations (ft) SH 361 SH 200 Center Line and ROW 11' Flood Plain 1% Annual Chance 0.2% Annual Chance
11'
12'
Humble Ditch 13' 12' (Current, Re-Routed Around DMPA) 13'
FM 1069 14'
14'
12' Proposed State Highway 200 11'
10'
Kinney Bayou
9'
9'
Jewel Fulton Bridge
La Quinta Ship Channel
EXHIBIT 10 FLOODPLAIN MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS PEM1A
0 500 1,000 Legend PEM1AFeet PEM1A: SH 200 Center Line and ROW PEM1A Humble Ditch Re-Route PEM1A PEM1APEM1A National Hydrography Data PEM1APEM1A Estuarine and Marine WetlandPEM1A Freshwater Emergent Wetland PEM1A PEM1A PSS1A Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland PEM1A Freshwater Pond PEM1A Lake PEM1A Other PEM1A PEM1A Riverine SH 361 PEM1Fx PEM1A PEM1Cx
R4USCx PEM1A PSS1A PUBFx PEM1Fx PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A L2USKhs PEM1Ax PEM1A PUBFx PEM1Fx PUBFx Humble Ditch (Current, Re-Routed PUBFx Around DMPA) PUBFx PAB4Fx PEM1FxPUBFx PAB4Fx
PUSCx PUBFx PUBFx PUSCx PUSAx PUBFx PUSCx PUSAx PEM1Fx PUSCx
FM 1069 Humble Ditch PUBFx PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A PUBHx
PUSCx PEM1FxPEM1A E2USN Proposed State PEM1Fx Highway 200 PUBFx PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A PUBFx PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1APEM1A PEM1A PUBHx Parkside PEM1APEM1A E1AB3L Terrace PEM1APEM1APUBFx Subdivision PEM1A PEM1A E2EM1Ps PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1APEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1APEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1C PEM1Cx Kinney Bayou PEM1A PEM1C E2USP PEM1Fx PEM1C PEM1A E2EM1P PEM1Fx PUBFx PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A E1UBL Jewel Fulton Bridge PEM1C PEM1F PUSCx E2USP PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A La Quinta E2USP PEM1A Ship Channel PEM1A PEM1APEM1A L2USKhs E1AB3L E1UBLx PEM1A PEM1A PEM1F PEM1APEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A EXHIBIT 11 PEM1A E1AB3L PEM1C PEM1C PEM1C E1AB3L NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAYPEM1C 200 U/PEM1C U/PEM1C E1AB3LINGLESIDE, TEXAS PEM1F PUBF PEM1C Na Legend Os 0 500 1,000 Na - Narta fine sandy loam Feet Nu - Nueces fine sand : Or - Orelia fine sandy loam RaA Dt Os - Orelia sandy clay loam As PaA - Papalote fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PaA RaA - Raymondville clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes PaAGM - Galveston-Mustang association
SH 361 Os
Na Na PaA Proposed State Dt Highway 200
PaA Nu
FM 1069
PaA Nu PaA Or Ec Os
PaA RaB Ec RaA
VcA Nu Na
Ec GM
VcA
RaB Os RaB BT RaB Ec
EXHIBIT 12 RaA SOILS MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS PaB W 0 500 1,000 Legend Feet SH 361 : SH 200 Center Line and ROW NHD Essential Fish Habitat
Proposed State FM 1069 Highway 200
Kinney Bayou
Jewel Fulton Bridge
La Quinta Ship Channel
EXHIBIT 13A ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: STONE CRAB, Corpus Christi Bay COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGICS, RED DRUM, REEF FISH, SHRIMP, AND SHARKS PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS Legend 0 50 100 City of Ingleside Meters SH 200 Center Line and ROW 4 NHD Wastewater Department Approximate Sample Points
NMFS Essential Fish Habitat
Units mS/cm = millisiemens/cm ppt = parts per thousand
Main St. KB Right Branch 0.234 mS/cm 1 ppt
KB Left Branch 1.158 mS/cm 1 ppt
KB Fork 1.155 mS/cm 1 ppt
Proposed SH 200 KB1 1.119 mS/cm 1 ppt
KB2 1.110 mS/cm 1 ppt
KB3 1.091 mS/cm 3 ppt
Kinney Bayou
KB4 1.104 mS/cm 3 ppt
KB5 1.097 mS/cm 2 ppt
KB6 1.054 mS/cm 3 ppt
KB7 1.024 mS/cm 2 ppt
KB8 0.986 mS/cm 3 ppt
KB9 1.013 mS/cm 2 ppt
KB11 KB10 KB12 1.196 mS/cm 2 ppt
KB13 1.632 mS/cm 4 ppt
KB14
KB15 7.710 mS/cm 7 ppt
KB16 48.100 mS/cm 10 ppt
KB17 33.050 mS/cm 21 ppt
KB18 36.490 mS/cm 26 ppt
KB19 43.030 mS/cm 30 ppt
Main St.
Jewel Fulton Bridge
EXHIBIT 13B KINNEY BAYOU SALINITY AND CONDUCTIVITY SAMPLING PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS 1500 750 0 1500
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
EXPRESS MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LCC
CITY OF INGLESIDE
PROPOSED ROADWAY ROUTE OPTION D
EXXON PIPELINE COMPANY PROPERTY
109'
109' 500' TRAFFIC NOISE RECEIVER "R1" MIRCOVICH PROPERTY
HELIX PROPERTY
WELDER PROPERTY
LEGEND R.O.W.
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
CENTERLINE 66 dB(A) CONTOUR LINE R1 NOISE RECEIVER
EXHIBIT 14 NOISE MODELING RECEIVER MAP PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: Sheet DT MKS NOTED EXH 14_NOISE_05-15-15 Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: MKS 8770 5/16/15 0 Of DT./E.F. S.E.C. S.E.C. 8770 NOTED 1/20/15 0 Drawn By Checked By Approved By Project No. Scale Date Revsion No.
LEGEND
NEI-MONITOR WELL LOCATION
NEI-SOIL VAPOR POINTS (9/2009)
NEI-SOIL BORING LOCATION
CRA-SOIL BORING (2012)
CRA-MONITOR WELL (2012)
TRRP ACTION LEVEL EXCEEDANCE (mg/kg) 2000 1000 0 2000
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200
AREA OF INFLUENCE
EXHIBIT 16 AREA OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS
Drawn By: Appr. By: Scale: Dwg. File: EXH 16_AREA Sheet TL TES NOTED OF INFLUENCE Checked By: Project No.: Date: Rev.: TL 8770 9/2/14 0 Of
APPENDIX A
Community Demographics
U.S. Census Bureau Tract Map Proposed State Highway 200 Ingleside, San Patricio County, Texas Table 1. Detailed race and ethnicity data for the project vicinity from the 2010 U.S. Census.
Not Hispanic or Latino
Native American Hispanic Hawaiian Some Location Total Black or Indian Two or or Latino and Other White African and Asian More other Race American Alaskan Races Pacific Alone Native Islander
9,460,921 11,397,345 2,886,825 80,586 948,426 17,920 38,980 319,558 Texas 25,145,561 (37.6%) (45.3%) (11.4%) (0.3%) (3.8%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (1.3%)
San Patricio 35,248 27,330 902 169 506 53 550 64,804 46 (0.1%) County (54.4%) (42.2%) (1.4%) (0.3%) (0.8%) (0.1%) (0.8%)
3,834 5,021 164 185 9 128 Ingleside 9,387 39 (0.4%) 7 (0.1%) (40.8%) (53.5%) (1.7%) (2.0%) (0.1%) (1.4%)
Census Tract 1,771 2,739 3 72 4,768 81 (1.7%) 11 (0.2%) 85 (1.8%) 6 (0.1%) 103.02 (37.1%) (57.4%) (0.1%) (1.5%)
206 767 6 Block Group 1 1,000 12 (1.2%) 2 (0.2%) 7 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0(0.0%) (20.6%) (76.7%) (0.6%)
1,168 1,659 0 62 Block Group 2 3,038 60 (1.9%) 7 (0.2%) 76 (2.5%) 6 (0.2%) (38.4%) (54.6%) (0.0%) (2.0%)
397 313 3 4 Block Group 3 730 9 (1.2%) 2 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) (54.4 %) (42.9%) (0.4%) (0.5%)
1,551 1,951 2 49 Census Tract 107 3,663 53 (1.4%) 6 (0.2%) 50 (1.4%) 1 (0.0%) (42.3%) (53.3%) (0.0%) (1.3%)
499 478 0 12 Block Group 1 997 4 (0.4%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) (50.0%) (47.9%) (0.0%) (1.2%)
1,052 1,473 2 37 Block Group 2 2,666 49 (1.8%) 4 (0.2%) 48 (1.8%) 1 (0.0%) (39.4%) (55.2%) (0.1%) (1.4%) 2010 U.S. Census data, Table P9 Table 2. Median household income within the project area.
Median Household Income Location Estimate Margin of Error Texas $51,563 +/- 138 San Patricio County $51,104 +/- 3,016 Ingleside $62,953 +/- 8,943 Census Tract 103.02 $62,083 +/- 9,096 Block Group 1 $52,375 +/- 19,251 Block Group 2 $66,830 +/- 10,176 Block Group 3 $34,924 +/- 40,984 Census Tract 107 $75,781 +/- 16,071 Block Group 1 $53,942 +/- 15,012 Block Group 2 $80,217 +/- 9,788 Source: 2008-2012 U.S. Census America Community Survey, Table B19013
Table 3. Poverty data within the project area.
Population for Whom Poverty Population Below Poverty Percentage of Population Status is Determined Level Below Poverty Level Location Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Estimate Margin of Error Error Texas 24,607,114 +/- 3,267 4,270,218 +/- 28,357 17.4% +/- 0.1 San Patricio County 64,422 +/- 223 10,713 +/- 1,237 16.6% +/- 1.9 Ingleside 9,275 +/- 139 1,060 +/- 400 11.4% +/- 4.3 Census Tract 103.02 4,478 +/- 404 523 +/- 267 11.7% +/- 5.8 Census Tract 107 3,751 +/- 556 374 +/- 244 10.0% +/- 6.4 Source: 2008-2012 U.S. Census America Community Survey, Table S1701
Table 4. Limited English proficiency data within the project area.
Speaks Other Speaks Asian and Speaks Other Speaks Spanish, Indo-European Pacific Island Languages, Total Population Speaks English Languages, Languages, Location Speaks English (age 5 and older) Not Well or Not Speaks English Speaks English Not Well or Not At All Not Well or Not Not Well or Not At All At All At All 1,729,205 Texas 23,280,055 37,793 121,107 14,235 (7.4%) 2,586 San Patricio County 60,589 0 30 0 (4.3%) 317 Ingleside 8,792 0 0 0 (3.6%) 166 Census Tract 103.02 4,371 0 0 0 (3.8%) 0 Block Group 1 1,073 0 0 0 (0.0%) 45 Block Group 2 2,718 0 0 0 (1.6%) 121 Block Group 3 580 0 0 0 (20.9%) 53 Census Tract 107 3,559 0 0 0 (1.5%) 0 Block Group 1 921 0 0 0 (0.0%) 45 Block Group 2 2,638 0 0 0 (1.7%) Source: 2008-2012 U.S. Census America Community Survey, Table B16004
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B-1 Vegetation Type Map - Overview APPENDIX B-2 Vegetation Type Map – Section 1 APPENDIX B-3 Vegetation Type Map – Section 2 APPENDIX B-4 Vegetation Type Map – Section 3 APPENDIX B-5 Vegetation Type Map – Section 4 Vegetation Type Table Wetland Delineation Map – Stations 37+00 to 53+00 Wetland Delineation Map – Stations 94+00 to 99+00 Photo Log Coastal Management Program Zone Map
0 250 500 Feet : SH 361 Legend SH 200 CL and ROW
! Surveyed Station Points ! 0+00 SH 361 ! 1+00 Stations 0-1 FM 1069 Urban Low Intensity ! 2+00 National Hydrography Dataset Zone 5
! 3+00 Vegetation Types - 2010 Field Investigation Common Name ! 4+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie
! 5+00 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland ! 6+00 Marsh (Cattail)
! 7+00 Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland ! South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Savanna Grassland 8+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland Stations 2-17 ! 9+00 Urban Low Intensity Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland ! 10+00 Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland ! 11+00 Vegetation Types - TPWD Mapped ! 12+00 Common Name Active Sand Dune ! 13+00 Barren ! 14+00 Central and Lower Coastal: Beach ! 15+00 Coastal Bend: Floodplain Hardwood Forest ! 16+00 Coastal Bend: Riparian Deciduous Shrubland Stations 18-24 Coastal Bend: Riparian Evergreen Shrubland ! 17+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland ! 18+00 Coastal Bend: Riparian Hardwood Forest ! 19+00 Coastal Bend: Riparian Herbaceous Wetland ! 20+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Grassland Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Grassland Swale Marsh ! 21+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Live Oak - Mesquite Woodland ! 22+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Live Oak Forest and Woodland Stations 25-28 ! 23+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Live Oak Shrubland Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland ! 24+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Live Oak Swale Marsh ! 25+00 Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Shrubland Coastal: Mangrove Shrubland ! 26+00 Coastal: Salt and Brackish High Tidal Marsh ! 27+00 Coastal: Salt and Brackish High Tidal Shrub Wetland Stations 29-33 Proposed SH 200 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland ! 28+00 Coastal: Salt and Brackish Low Tidal Marsh ! 29+00 Coastal: Sea Ox-eye Daisy Flats Coastal: Tidal Flat ! 30+00 ! Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie 31+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie Pondshore ! 32+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland ! 33+00 Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland ! 34+00 Stations 34-40 Matchline A Marsh Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland ! 35+00 Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland Native Invasive: Common Reed ! 36+00 Native Invasive: Deciduous Woodland ! 37+00 Native Invasive: Huisache Woodland or Shrubland Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland ! 38+00 Non-Native Invasive: Chinese Tallow Forest, Woodland, or Shrubland ! 39+00 Non-native Invasive: Saltcedar Shrubland Open Water ! 40+00 Row Crops Stations 41-42 ! 41+00 South Texas: Algal Flats Marsh (Cattail) ! 42+00 South Texas: Clayey Blackbrush Mixed Shrubland South Texas: Clayey Live Oak Motte and Woodland ! 43+00 South Texas: Clayey Mesquite Mixed Shrubland ! 44+00 South Texas: Sandy Live Oak Motte and Woodland South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland ! 45+00 South Texas: Wind Tidal Flats ! 46+00 Urban High Intensity Stations 43-52 Urban Low Intensity ! 47+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie ! 48+00
! 49+00
! 50+00
! 51+00
! 52+00
! 53+00
! 54+00
! 55+00
! 56+00 ! Stations 53-62 57+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie ! 58+00
! 59+00 ! 60+00 Matchline B ! 61+00
! 62+00
! 63+00
! 64+00
! 65+00
Stations 63-65 ! 66+00 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Savanna Grassland ! 67+00
! 68+00
Stations 66-69 ! 69+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie ! 70+00
! 71+00 Stations 70-71 ! 72+00 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Savanna Grassland ! 73+00
! 74+00
! 75+00
! 76+00
! 77+00
! 78+00
! 79+00
! 80+00 Stations 72-88 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland ! 81+00 ! 82+00
! 83+00 ! 84+00 FM 1069 ! 85+00 ! 86+00 Matchline C ! 87+00
! 88+00
! 89+00
! 90+00
! 91+00 Stations 89-91 Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland ! 92+00 ! 93+00
Station 92 ! 94+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie ! 95+00 ! ! 97+00! ! 99+00 ! ! ! 102+00! ! 104+00
Stations 93-102 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Station 103 Urban Low Intensity APPENDIX B-1 VEGETATION TYPES MAP - OVERVIEW PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS 0 125 250 Feet SH 361 ! 0+00 :
! 1+00
! 2+00
! 3+00
! 4+00
! 5+00
! 6+00
! 7+00
! 8+00 Stations 2-17 Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland ! 9+00
! 10+00
! 11+00
! 12+00
! 13+00
! 14+00
! 15+00
! 16+00
! 17+00
! 18+00
! 19+00
Stations 25-28 ! 20+00 Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland ! 21+00
! 22+00
! 23+00
! 24+00 Stations 18-24 ! 25+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland ! 26+00
! 27+00
! 28+00
! 29+00
! 30+00
! 31+00
! 32+00
! 33+00
! 34+00
! 35+00 Matchline A
! 36+00 Stations 29-33 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland ! 37+00
! 38+00
! 39+00 APPENDIX B-2 ! 40+00 VEGETATION TYPES MAP - SECTION 1 ! PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 41+00 INGLESIDE, TEXAS ! !
! 30+00
! 31+00 0 125 250 Feet : ! 32+00
! 33+00
! 34+00
! 35+00 Matchline A
! 36+00
! 37+00
! 38+00
! 39+00
! Stations 34-40 40+00
Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland ! 41+00
! 42+00
! 43+00
! 44+00
! 45+00 Stations 41-42
! 46+00 Marsh (Cattail)
! 47+00
! 48+00
! 49+00
! 50+00
Stations 43-52 ! 51+00 Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie ! 52+00
! 53+00
! 54+00
! 55+00
! 56+00
! 57+00
! 58+00
! 59+00
! 60+00 Matchline B
! 61+00
! Stations 53-62 62+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie ! 63+00
! 64+00
! 65+00
! 66+00
! 67+00
! 68+00
! 69+00
! 70+00 APPENDIX B-3 ! 71+00 VEGETATION TYPES MAP - SECTION 2 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 ! 72+00
INGLESIDE, TEXAS ! 73+00
! !
! 53+00
0 125 250 ! 54+00 Feet : ! 55+00
! 56+00
! 57+00
! 58+00
! 59+00
! 60+00 Matchline B
! 61+00
! 62+00
Stations 63-65 ! 63+00 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite ! 64+00 Savanna Grassland ! 65+00
! 66+00
! 67+00
! 68+00
! 69+00 Stations 66-69 ! 70+00 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie
! 71+00
! 72+00
! 73+00
! Stations 70-71 74+00 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite ! 75+00 Savanna Grassland ! 76+00
! 77+00
! 78+00
! 79+00
! 80+00
! 81+00
! 82+00
! 83+00
! 84+00
! 85+00
Stations 72-88 ! South Texas: Sandy Mesquite 86+00 Woodland and Shrubland ! 87+00 Matchline C ! 88+00
! 89+00
! 90+00
! 91+00
! 92+00
! 93+00
! 94+00 APPENDIX B-4 ! VEGETATION TYPES MAP - SECTION 3 ! PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 ! INGLESIDE, TEXAS !
!
! 73+00 0 125 250 Feet : ! 74+00
! 75+00
! 76+00
! 77+00
! 78+00
! 79+00
! 80+00
! 81+00
! 82+00
! 83+00
! 84+00
! 85+00
! 86+00 Matchline C
! Stations 89-91 87+00 Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland ! 88+00
! 89+00
! 90+00
! 91+00
FM 1069
! 92+00
! 93+00
! 94+00
! 95+00
! 96+00
! 97+00 ! 98+00 ! 99+00 ! 100+00! 101+00! 102+00! 103+00! 104+00 Station 92 Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie
Stations 93-102 Station 103 South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Urban Low Intensity Woodland and Shrubland
APPENDIX B-5 VEGETATION TYPES MAP - SECTION 4 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS Soils, dominant plant species, and past/present land use for each vegetation type within the SH 200 project corridor, based upon 2010 field evaluations.
Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Station(s) & Land Use Soils* Dominant Species Land Use (past) (Ecosystem) (EMST) acres (present) Native Invasive Invasive: 1-17 Na Chinese tallow Industrial: refinery Fallow Shrub and Woodland Evergreen Shrubland 6.24 acres Date palm Guineagrass Honey mesquite Mexican fan palm Roosevelt weed Sugar hackberry Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Gulf Coast: 18-24 Na Gulf cordgrass Industrial: refinery Fallow Salty Prairie Shrubland 2.57 acres Prairie broomweed Roosevelt weed Smartweed N/A Native Invasive: 25-28 Na Gulf cordgrass Industrial: refinery Fallow Baccharis Shrubland 1.46 acres Roosevelt weed Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Gulf Coast: 29-33 Na Annual sunflower Industrial: refinery Fallow Salty Prairie Shrubland 1.83 acres Honey mesquite Johnsongrass Knotroot bristlegrass Prairie broomweed Roosevelt weed Sugar Hackberry Sumpweed N/A Native Invasive: 34-40 RaA Retama Industrial: refinery Fallow Baccharis Shrubland 2.57 acres Roosevelt weed Sumpweed N/A Marsh (Cattail) 41-42 RaA Cattail Industrial: refinery Fallow 0.73 acres Rattlebush Retama
Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Gulf Coast: 43-52 RaA Annual sunflower Industrial: refinery Fallow Salty Prairie 3.67 acres Or Croton Gulf cordgrass Roosevelt weed Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Station(s) & Land Use Soils* Dominant Species Land Use (past) (Ecosystem) (EMST) acres (present) Texas-Louisiana Coastal Gulf Coast: 53-62 Or Gulf cordgrass Industrial: refinery Fallow Prairie Coastal Prairie 3.37 acres Kleberg bluestem Knotroot bristlegrass Rattail smutgrass Silver bluestem Spiny aster
Tamaulipan Savanna South Texas: 63-65 PaA Croton Cropland Fallow Grassland Sandy Mesquite Savanna 1.10 acres Guineagrass Grassland Honey mesquite Kleberg bluestem Sumpweed
Texas-Louisiana Coastal Gulf Coast: 66-69 PaA Croton Cropland Fallow Prairie Coastal Prairie 1.46 acres Kleberg bluestem Silverleaf nightshade Spiny aster Sumpweed Western ragweed
Tamaulipan Savanna South Texas: 70-71 PaA Bristlegrass Cropland Fallow Grassland Sandy Mesquite Savanna 0.73 acres Guineagrass Grassland Honey mesquite Prairie broomweed Retama Sumpweed Tamaulipan Savanna South Texas: 72-88 PaA Honey mesquite Livestock Livestock Grassland Sandy Mesquite Woodland and 5.00 acres Os Lime prickly-ash Shrubland Na Huisache Spiny hackberry Croton Silver bluestem Prairie broomweed Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Station(s) & Land Use Soils* Dominant Species Land Use (past) (Ecosystem) (EMST) acres (present) Central Texas Coastal Prairie Coastal Bend: 89-91 Na Bermudagrass Livestock Livestock Riparian Riparian Grassland 0.10 acres Cattail Croton Prairie broomweed Rattlebush Sedges Sprangletop Texas-Louisiana Coastal Gulf Coast: 92 Na Arizona cottontop Livestock Livestock Prairie Coastal Prairie 0.73 acres Croton Kleberg bluestem Prairie broomweed Western ragweed Tamaulipan Savanna South Texas: 93-102 Na Bermudagrass Livestock Livestock Grassland Sandy Mesquite Woodland and 3.67 acres Nu Blackbrush acacia Shrubland Brasil Honey mesquite Lime prickly-ash Lotebush Prairie broomweed Spiny hackberry Urban Urban Low Intensity 84-90, 103 Nu N/A Livestock Caliche Roads 3.11 acres Residential Residential TOTAL 38.34 acres
* Na: Narta fine sandy loam RaA: Raymondville clay loam Or: Orelia fine sandy loam PaA: Papalote fine sandy loam Os: Orelia sandy clay loam Nu: Nueces fine sand !
37+00 0 25 50 100 ! Feet Wetland : Delineation Location
Legend 38+00 ! SH 200 Center Line and ROW ! Station Points
! Wetland Boundary Points 39+00 Approximate Wetland Boundaries ! Approximate Wetlands within ROW
Total Wetland Acreage: 0.797 acres 40+00 ! ! Wetland Acreage ! ! within ROW: 0.499 acres ! ! ! ! 41+00 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Total Wetland ! Acreage: 9.56 acres ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 42+00 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
43+00 !
! 44+00 ! !
Wetland Acreage within ROW: 0.661 acres !45+00! ! ! !! !
! 46+00 ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 47+00! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 48+00 ! ! Wetland Acreage ! within ROW: 0.179 acres ! ! ! ! ! ! 49+00 ! ! ! ! Total Wetland Acreage: 0.334 acres ! ! ! 50+00 ! !
Wetland Acreage ! within ROW: 0.220 acres ! ! 51+00 !
! 52+00 APPENDIX B ! WETLAND DELINEATION MAP STATIONS 37+00 - 53+00 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 53+00 INGLESIDE, TEXAS !
! 0 25 50 Feet : 92+00 ! Legend SH 200 CL and ROW ! Surveyed Station Points !( Boundary Points of Potential Wetlands Approximate Wetland Boundaries Approximate Wetlands within ROW Wetland Delineation Location 93+00 !
Wetland Acreage 94+00 within ROW: 0.004 acres ! Total Wetland Acreage: 0.004 acres
Total Wetland Acreage: 0.048 acres Total Wetland Acreage: 0.003 acres
95+00 Wetland Acreage ! within ROW: 0.001 acres
Wetland Acreage within ROW: 0.047 acres 96+00 !
Total Wetland Acreage: 0.002 acres Total Wetland Acreage: 0.015 acres
Wetland Acreage 97+00 within ROW: 0.007 acres !
Wetland Acreage within ROW: 0.002 acres 98+00 !
99+00 !
APPENDIX B WETLAND DELINEATION MAP STATIONS 94+00 - 99+00 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY 200 INGLESIDE, TEXAS Proposed SH 200 Route - Photo Log
Photo 1. Near Station 5+00 facing south. A variety of shrubs (including honey mesquite, sugar hackberry, narrow-leaf forestiera), grasses and vines dominated this portion of the proposed project. Photos 1-3 depict Invasive Evergreen Shrubland which occurs approximately between Stations 1+00 and 17+00. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 2. Near Station 8+00. The northern portion of the proposed project contained remnants of asphalt roads, gravel, and concrete foundations. Ornamental trees such as fan palms (pictured in photo background), date palms, and Chinese tallow were also present. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 3. Near Station 16+50. Rank growth of the introduced and invasive guineagrass. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 4. Near Station 21+00. The habitat located approximately between Stations 18+00 and 24+00 is characterized as Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland. Gulf cordgrass is the dominant grass in this area. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 5. Near Station 26+00, facing south. The habitat located approximately between Stations 25+00 and 28+00 is characterized as Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 6. Near Station 25+00, facing south. This portion of the project area contained stained soil, tar deposits, and hydrocarbon odors. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 7. Near Station 29+00, facing east. The habitat located approximately between Stations 29+00 and 33+00 is characterized as Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland (see also Photo 8). The photo above depicts dominant vegetation including honey mesquite, sunflower, prairie broomweed, and knotroot bristlegrass. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 8. Near Station 31+00, facing south. Dominant vegetation in this area included honey mesquite, sugar hackberry, sumpweed, and Johnsongrass. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 9. Near Station 39+00, facing southeast. Dominant vegetation included Kleberg bluestem, buffelgrass, and Baccharis. The habitat located approximately between Stations 34+00 and 38+00 is characterized as Native Invasive: Baccharis Shrubland. Photo taken 01/30/2015.
Photo 10. Near Station 41+00 facing south. This area, approximately located between stations 38+00 and 40+00 included a large freshwater wetland. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 11. Near Station 40+00 facing east across large freshwater wetland. Vegetation within the wetland included bushy bluestem, late boneset, watercress, and Ludwigia sp. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 12. Near Station 40+00 within freshwater wetland facing south. Bushy bluestem and late boneset can be seen in the photo. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 13. Near Station 45+00, facing west. The area located approximately between Stations 44+00 and 48+00 contained large Spartina spartinae and Baccharis wetlands. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 14. Near Station 45+00, facing east, in middle Spartina spartinae wetland. Wood lath with flagging depicts wetland delineation site. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 15. Large Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius) observed near Station 46+50. Photo taken facing northwest. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 16. Photo taken at far west border of middle Spartina spartinae wetland facing east. This wetland was dominated by Spartina spartinae, Baccharis, and bushy bluestem. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 17. Southern border of middle Spartina spartinae wetland facing northeast. The wetland is bordered on the south by a ditch with a slight elevated berm containing mesquite trees. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 18. Ditch located near Station 46+00, facing west. This ditch separates the two Spartina spartinae wetlands. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 19. Wetland delineation site within southernmost Spartina spartinae wetland facing northeast near Station 47+00. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 20. Photo taken facing northwest of a ditch located near Station 52+00 that bisects the project corridor. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 21. Near Station 60+00 facing east. This area contained a variety of forbs and a combination of introduced and native grasses, including Kleberg bluestem, Gulf cordgrass, silver bluestem, and buffelgrass. Photo taken 01/30/15.
Photo 22. Near Station 63+00 facing west. The sandy mesquite savanna grassland contained a variety of forbs and grasses such as croton, sumpweed, Kleberg bluestem, and guineagrass as well as scattered mesquite. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 23. Near Station 69+00 facing north. The coastal prairie contained a variety of forbs and a combination of introduced and native grasses including Kleberg bluestem, croton, sumpweed, and silverleaf nightshade. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 24. Near Station 73+00 facing north. The sandy mesquite woodland and shrubland contained thick stands of mesquite. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 25. Near Station 85+00 facing east. The sandy mesquite woodland and shrubland contained thick stands of mesquite and lime prickly-ash, with a variety of forbs and grasses such as croton and silver bluestem. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 26. Near Station 85+00 facing north. There were cattle on the property at the time of this site visit. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 27. Near Station 88+00 facing south. The sandy mesquite woodland and shrubland in this area contained thick stands of mesquite with small openings of bermudagrass, Kleberg bluestem, and prairie broomweed. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 28. Near Station 90+00 at Kinney Bayou facing south. This area is characteristic of Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland. Dominant vegetation includes sedges, croton, rattlebush, broomweed, cattails, and sprangletop. Photo taken 09/2010.
Photo 29. Near Station 90+00 at Kinney Bayou facing west. This area is characteristic of Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland. Dominant vegetation includes sedges, croton, rattlebush, broomweed, cattails, and sprangletop. Photo taken 02/20/15
Photo 30. Near Station 90+00. Mud nests belonging to cave swallows located under the Kinney Bayou concrete culverts. These were observed by TPWD biologists during the March 2014 site visit (photo courtesy TPWD). Photo taken 03/2014.
Photo 31. Near Station 91+00 facing west. This area consisted of shrubs, forbs, and grasses such as sea ox-eye daisy, prairie broomweed, retama, spiny hackberry, bermudagrass, and Kleberg bluestem. Photo taken 2/20/15.
Photo 32. Near Station 92+00 facing north. This area consisted of scattered brush, grassy openings, and bare sandy soils. Photo taken 02/20/15.
Photo 33. Wetland near Station 93+00. These wetlands were small depressions containing vegetation such as watercress, spikerush, bigfoot water clover, and Ludwigia sp. Photo taken 02/20/15.
Photo 34. Near Station 98+00 facing west. The habitat in this area contained thick stands of blackbrush acacia, brasil, spiny hackberry, lotebush and honey mesquite interspersed with open grassy and bare sand areas. A harvester ant colony can be seen in the right of the photo. Photo taken 02/20/15.
Photo 35. Near Station 101+00 facing south near the intersection of the project corridor with FM1069. Photo taken 02/20/15.
APPENDIX C
Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas State Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Table
Species By County Report Page 1 of 4
Environmental Conservation Online System Conserving the Nature of America Enter Search Term(s): Search
• ECOS> • Species Reports> • Species By County Report
Species By County Report
The following report contains Species that are known to or are believed to occur in this county. Species with range unrefined past the state level are now excluded from this report. If you are looking for the Section 7 range (for Section 7 Consultations), please visit the IPaC application.
County: San Patricio, TX
Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Recovery Plan Group Name Population Status Plan Office Name Action Status Stage Assistant Whooping Whooping Regional Crane Final except where Implementation Birds crane (Grus Endangered Director- Recovery Plan, Revision EXPN Progress americana) Ecological Final Third 3 Services Revision Brown except U.S. Ventura pelican Atlantic Fish and Recovery - - - (Pelecanus coast, FL, Wildlife occidentalis) AL Office Yellow-billed Sacramento Cuckoo Western Fish and Threatened - - - (Coccyzus U.S. DPS Wildlife americanus) Office Office of Great Lakes & Piping Plover except Great the Northern Great Implementation (Charadrius Lakes Threatened Final Regional Plains Piping Progress melodus) watershed Director Plover Piping Plover Implementation Final Atlantic Coast Progress Revision Population 1
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=48409 1/7/2015 Species By County Report Page 2 of 4
Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Recovery Plan Group Name Population Status Plan Office Name Action Status Stage Revised Recovery Plan New Jersey Red knot Ecological (Calidris Threatened Services - - - canutus rufa) Field Office North Dakota Sprague's Ecological pipit (Anthus Candidate - - - Services spragueii) Field Office Texas Coastal Golden orb Ecological Clams (Quadrula Candidate - - - Services aurea) Field Office North Recovery Plan West Indian Florida Puerto Rican Manatee Ecological Population of Implementation Mammals Entire Endangered Final (Trichechus Services the West Indian Progress manatus) Field (Antillean) Office Manatee Florida Final Manatee Implementation Revision Recovery Plan, Progress 3 Third Revision Gulf Coast GULF COAST Laguna jaguarundi JAGUARUNDI Atascosa (Herpailurus U.S.A. RECOVERY Implementation Endangered National Final (=Felis) (TX),Mexico PLAN (Puma Progress Wildlife yagouaroundi yagouaroundi Refuge cacomitli) cacomitli) Ocelot U.S.A.(AZ, Laguna Ocelot (Leopardus TX) to Atascosa Draft (Leopardus pardalis) Implementation Central and Endangered National Revision (=Felis) Recovery Plan, Progress South Wildlife 1 pardalis) Draft First America Refuge Revision Reptiles Hawksbill sea Entire Endangered North Recovery Plan Implementation Final turtle Florida for the Progress Revision (Eretmochelys Ecological Hawksbill 1 imbricata) Services Turtle in the Field U.S. Caribbean, Office
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=48409 1/7/2015 Species By County Report Page 3 of 4
Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Recovery Plan Group Name Population Status Plan Office Name Action Status Stage Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Final Implementation Populations of Revision Progress the Hawksbill 1 Turtle North Recovery Plan Leatherback Florida for Leatherback Final sea turtle Ecological Turtles in the Implementation Entire Endangered Revision (Dermochelys Services U.S. Caribbean, Progress 1 coriacea) Field Atlantic, and Office Gulf of Mexico Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Final Implementation Populations of Revision Progress the Leatherback 1 Turtle Bi-National Recovery Plan Texas for the Kemp's Kemp's ridley Coastal Ridley Sea Final sea turtle Ecological Implementation Entire Endangered Turtle Revision (Lepidochelys Services Progress (Lepidochelys 2 kempii) Field kempii) Office SECOND REVISION North Recovery Plan Green sea Florida Except for U.S. Pacific Final turtle Ecological Implementation where Threatened Populations of Revision (Chelonia Services Progress endangered the Green 1 mydas) Field Turtle Office Recovery Plan for U.S. Final Implementation Population of Revision Progress Atlantic Green 1 Turtle Loggerhead Northwest Threatened North Recovery Plan Implementation Final sea turtle Atlantic Florida for the Progress Revision (Caretta Ocean DPS Ecological Northwest 2 caretta) Services Atlantic Field Population of Office the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta);
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=48409 1/7/2015 Species By County Report Page 4 of 4
Recovery Lead Recovery Plan Recovery Plan Group Name Population Status Plan Office Name Action Status Stage Second Revision Export options: CSV | EXCEL | XML | PDF
ECOS Home | About ECOS | Contact Us U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page | Department of the Interior | USA.gov | About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Accessibility | Privacy | Notices | Disclaimer | FOIA
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=48409 1/7/2015 Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 1 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species Last Revision: 4/28/2014 4:06:00 PM
SAN PATRICIO COUNTY AMPHIBIANS Federal Status State Status Black-spotted newt Notophthalmus meridionalis T can be found in wet or sometimes wet areas, such as arroyos, canals, ditches, or even shallow depressions; aestivates in the ground during dry periods; Gulf Coastal Plain south of the San Antonio River Sheep frog Hypopachus variolosus T predominantly grassland and savanna; moist sites in arid areas South Texas siren (large form) Siren sp 1 T wet or sometimes wet areas, such as arroyos, canals, ditches, or even shallow depressions; aestivates in the ground during dry periods, but does require some moisture to remain; southern Texas south of Balcones Escarpment; breeds February-June
BIRDS Federal Status State Status American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum DL T year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands. Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius DL migrant throughout state from subspecies’ far northern breeding range, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands. Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis DL largely coastal and near shore areas, where it roosts and nests on islands and spoil banks Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis LE E historic; nonbreeding: grasslands, pastures, plowed fields, and less frequently, marshes and mudflats Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii wintering individuals (not flocks) found in weedy fields or cut-over areas where lots of bunch grasses occur along with vines and brambles; a key component is bare ground for running/walking Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus breeding: nests on high plains or shortgrass prairie, on ground in shallow depression; nonbreeding: shortgrass plains and bare, dirt (plowed) fields; primarily insectivorous Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis LE E open country, especially savanna and open woodland, and sometimes in very barren areas; grassy plains and valleys with scattered mesquite, yucca, and cactus; nests in old stick nests of other bird species Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 2 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species SAN PATRICIO COUNTY BIRDS Federal Status State Status Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus DL T both subspecies migrate across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter along coast and farther south; subspecies (F. p. anatum) is also a resident breeder in west Texas; the two subspecies’ listing statuses differ, F.p. tundrius is no longer listed in Texas; but because the subspecies are not easily distinguishable at a distance, reference is generally made only to the species level; see subspecies for habitat. Piping Plover Charadrius melodus LT T wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast; beaches and bayside mud or salt flats Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens T resident of the Texas Gulf Coast; brackish marshes and shallow salt ponds and tidal flats; nests on ground or in trees or bushes, on dry coastal islands in brushy thickets of yucca and prickly pear Sennett's Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus sennetti often builds nests in and of Spanish moss (Tillandsia unioides); feeds on invertebrates, fruit, and nectar; breeding March to August Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus formerly an uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata T predominately 'on the wing'; does not dive, but snatches small fish and squid with bill as it flies or hovers over water; breeding April-July Southeastern Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast beaches and bayside mud or salt flats Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii C only in Texas during migration and winter, mid September to early April; short to medium distance, diurnal migrant; strongly tied to native upland prairie, can be locally common in coastal grasslands, uncommon to rare further west; sensitive to patch size and avoids edges. Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea open grasslands, especially prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation or airports; nests and roosts in abandoned burrows Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi T prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats; nests in marshes, in low trees, on the ground in bulrushes or reeds, or on floating mats White-tailed Hawk Buteo albicaudatus 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-May Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 3 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species SAN PATRICIO COUNTY BIRDS Federal Status State Status Whooping Crane Grus americana LE E potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast; winters in coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun, and Refugio counties Wood Stork Mycteria americana T forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including salt- water; usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds (i.e. active heronries); breeds in Mexico and birds move into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands, even those associated with forested areas; formerly nested in Texas, but no breeding records since 1960
FISHES Federal Status State Status American eel Anguilla rostrata coastal waterways below reservoirs to gulf; spawns January to February in ocean, larva move to coastal waters, metamorphose, then females move into freshwater; most aquatic habitats with access to ocean, muddy bottoms, still waters, large streams, lakes; can travel overland in wet areas; males in brackish estuaries; diet varies widely, geographically, and seasonally Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus T brooding adults found in fresh or low salinity waters and young move or are carried into more saline waters after birth; southern coastal areas Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata LE E different life history stages have different patterns of habitat use; young found very close to shore in muddy and sandy bottoms, seldom descending to depths greater than 32 ft (10 m); in sheltered bays, on shallow banks, and in estuaries or river mouths; adult sawfish are encountered in various habitat types (mangrove, reef, seagrass, and coral), in varying salinity regimes and temperatures, and at various water depths, feed on a variety of fish species and crustaceans Texas pipefish Syngnathus affinis Corpus Christi Bay; seagrass beds
INSECTS Federal Status State Status Manfreda giant-skipper Stallingsia maculosus most skippers are small and stout-bodied; name derives from fast, erratic flight; at rest most skippers hold front and hind wings at different angles; skipper larvae are smooth, with the head and neck constricted; skipper larvae usually feed inside a leaf shelter and pupate in a cocoon made of leaves fastened together with silk
MAMMALS Federal Status State Status Jaguarundi Herpailurus yaguarondi LE E thick brushlands, near water favored; 60 to 75 day gestation, young born sometimes twice per year in March and August, elsewhere the beginning of the rainy season and end of the dry season Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 4 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species SAN PATRICIO COUNTY MAMMALS Federal Status State Status Ocelot Leopardus pardalis LE E dense chaparral thickets; mesquite-thorn scrub and live oak mottes; avoids open areas; breeds and raises young June-November Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta catholic; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers wooded, brushy areas and tallgrass prairie Red wolf Canis rufus LE E extirpated; formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas, as well as coastal prairies Southern yellow bat Lasiurus ega T associated with trees, such as palm trees (Sabal mexicana) in Brownsville, which provide them with daytime roosts; insectivorous; breeding in late winter West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus LE E Gulf and bay system; opportunistic, aquatic herbivore White-nosed coati Nasua narica T woodlands, riparian corridors and canyons; most individuals in Texas probably transients from Mexico; diurnal and crepuscular; very sociable; forages on ground and in trees; omnivorous; may be susceptible to hunting, trapping, and pet trade
MOLLUSKS Federal Status State Status Golden orb Quadrula aurea C T sand and gravel in some locations and mud at others; found in lentic and lotic; Guadalupe, San Antonio, Lower San Marcos, and Nueces River basins
REPTILES Federal Status State Status Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata LE E Gulf and bay system, warm shallow waters especially in rocky marine environments, such as coral reefs and jetties, juveniles found in floating mats of sea plants; feed on sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, molluscs, and crustaceans, nests April through November Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas LT T Gulf and bay system; shallow water seagrass beds, open water between feeding and nesting areas, barrier island beaches; adults are herbivorous feeding on sea grass and seaweed; juveniles are omnivorous feeding initially on marine invertebrates, then increasingly on sea grasses and seaweeds; nesting behavior extends from March to October, with peak activity in May and June Gulf Saltmarsh snake Nerodia clarkii saline flats, coastal bays, and brackish river mouthss Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 5 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species SAN PATRICIO COUNTY REPTILES Federal Status State Status Kemp's Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii LE E Gulf and bay system, adults stay within the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico; feed primarily on crabs, but also snails, clams, other crustaceans and plants, juveniles feed on sargassum and its associated fauna; nests April through August Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea LE E Gulf and bay systems, and widest ranging open water reptile; omnivorous, shows a preference for jellyfish; in the US portion of their western Atlantic nesting territories, nesting season ranges from March to August Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta LT T Gulf and bay system primarily for juveniles, adults are most pelagic of the sea turtles; omnivorous, shows a preference for mollusks, crustaceans, and coral; nests from April through November Spot-tailed earless lizard Holbrookia lacerata central and southern Texas and adjacent Mexico; moderately open prairie-brushland; fairly flat areas free of vegetation or other obstructions, including disturbed areas; eats small invertebrates; eggs laid underground Texas diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin littoralis coastal marshes, tidal flats, coves, estuaries, and lagoons behind barrier beaches; brackish and salt water; burrows into mud when inactive; may venture into lowlands at high tide 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-September Texas indigo snake Drymarchon melanurus erebennus T Texas south of the Guadalupe River and Balcones Escarpment; thornbush-chaparral woodlands of south Texas, in particular dense riparian corridors; can do well in suburban and irrigated croplands if not molested or indirectly poisoned; requires moist microhabitats, such as rodent burrows, for shelter Texas scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea lineri T mixed hardwood scrub on sandy soils; feeds on reptile eggs; semi-fossorial; active April-September Texas tortoise Gopherus berlandieri T open brush with a grass understory is preferred; open grass and bare ground are avoided; when inactive occupies shallow depressions at base of bush or cactus, sometimes in underground burrows or under objects; longevity greater than 50 years; active March-November; breeds April-November Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus T swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland; limestone bluffs, sandy soil or black clay; prefers dense ground cover, i.e. grapevines or palmetto Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 6 of 6 Annotated County Lists of Rare Species SAN PATRICIO COUNTY PLANTS Federal Status State Status Coastal gay-feather Liatris bracteata Texas endemic; coastal prairie grasslands of various types, from salty prairie on low- lying somewhat saline clay loams to upland prairie on nonsaline clayey to sandy loams; flowering in fall Elmendorf's onion Allium elmendorfii Texas endemic; grassland openings in oak woodlands on deep, loose, well-drained sands; in Coastal Bend, on Pleistocene barrier island ridges and Holocene Sand Sheet that support live oak woodlands; to the north it occurs in post oak-black hickory-live oak woodlands over Queen City and similar Eocene formations; one anomalous specimen found on Llano Uplift in wet pockets of granitic loam; flowering March-April, May Plains gumweed Grindelia oolepis coastal prairies on heavy clay (blackland) soils, often in depressional areas, sometimes persisting in areas where management (mowing) may maintain or mimic natural prairie disturbance regimes; 'crawfish lands'; on nearly level Victoria clay, Edroy clay, claypan, possibly Greta within Orelia fine sandy loam over the Beaumont Formation, and Harlingen clay; roadsides, railroad rights-of-ways, vacant lots in urban areas, cemeteries; flowering April-December Refugio rain-lily Zephyranthes refugiensis Occurs on deep heavy black clay soils or sandy loams in swales or drainages on herbaceous grasslands or shrublands on level to rolling landscapes underlain by the Lissie Formation. Threeflower broomweed Thurovia triflora Texas endemic; near coast in sparse, low vegetation on a veneer of light colored silt or fine sand over saline clay along drier upper margins of ecotone between between salty prairies and tidal flats; further inland associated with vegetated slick spots on prairie mima mounds; flowering September-November Welder machaeranthera Psilactis heterocarpa Texas endemic; grasslands , varying from midgrass coastal prairies, and open mesquite-huisache woodlands on nearly level, gray to dark gray clayey to silty soils; known locations mapped on Victoria clay, Edroy clay, Dacosta sandy clay loam over Beaumont and Lissie formations; flowering September-November Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact AMPHIBIANS Aquatic and semi Black-spotted aquatic No suitable freshwater environments habitat exists in the Newt NL T No No impact (Notophthalmus including canals, vicinity of the proposed meridionalis) arroyos, and project. ditches Grasslands, savannas, and No suitable freshwater woodland margins Sheep Frog habitat exists in the (Hypopachus NL T under fallen trees, No No impact vicinity of the proposed variolosus) debris, and project. anything that may retain soil moisture Aquatic and semi aquatic No suitable freshwater South Texas Siren environments habitat exists in the NL T No No impact (large form) including canals, vicinity of the proposed (Siren sp 1) arroyos, and project. ditches BIRDS Year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from more northern breeding Suitable habitat is areas in US and present, however due to Canada, winters the minimal habitat along coast and taken by this project American farther south; and mobility of this occupies wide species, no impacts are Peregrine Falcon DL T Yes No impact (Falco peregrinus range of habitats expected. Federal anatum) during migration, Delisting Agreement is including urban, restricted to nesting concentrations falcons; therefore it along coast and does not apply to San barrier islands; low- Patricio County. altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Migrant throughout Suitable habitat is state from present, however due to Arctic Peregrine subspecies’ far the minimal habitat Falcon DL R northern breeding Yes No impact taken by this project (Falco peregrinus tundrus) range, winters and mobility of this along coast and species, no impacts are farther south expected. Inhabits seacoasts, bays, and open marine waters and No coastal waters are Brown Pelican islands of the (Pelecanus DL R No No impact located within the Pacific and Atlantic occidentalis) proposed project area. coasts. Roosts and nests on islands and spoil banks. Though suitable habitat is present in the project Grasslands, area, this species has pastures, and not been recorded since plowed fields, Eskimo Curlew LE E Yes No effect the early 1980s and is (Numenius borealis) occasionally presumed extinct by the marshes and IUCN, therefore is not mudflats expected to occur in the project area. Though suitable weedy fields are present in the Wintering project area, due to the Henslow’s individuals in minimal habitat taken Sparrow NL R weedy fields with Yes No impact (Ammodramus by this project and bunch grasses and henslowii) mobility of this species, bare ground no impacts are expected. Nests on high plains or shortgrass prairie No shortgrass prairie or on ground, plowed field habitat is Mountain Plover NL R nonbreeding No No impact (Charadrius montanus) present within the habitat shortgrass proposed project area. plains and bare plowed fields Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Though open grassland Open grassland, and shrubland is present woodlands with in the project area, sparse patches of minimal habitat will be Northern shrubs, especially taken by this project. In Aplomado Falcon LE E yucca, mesquite, Yes No effect addition, nesting is not (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) and cacti, and expected in this area barren areas. Nests due to the presumed in old stick nests of presence of Great other species. Horned Owls1, therefore no effects are expected. Suitable habitat is Breeds in present, however due to mountains of West the minimal habitat Texas; uses arid Peregrine Falcon DL T Yes No impact taken by this project (Falco peregrinus) grasslands, rivers, and mobility of this estuaries, and lakes species, no impacts are during migration expected. Intertidal beaches with sparsely No beaches or mud flats Piping Plover LT T vegetated or No No effect are located within the (Charadrius melodus) unvegetated proposed project area. mud/sand flats Inhabits various No estuarine habitats estuarine habitats are present within the such as mudflats, project area and marshes, and tidal analysis of known ponds. Ground Reddish Egret NL T No No impact colonial waterbird (Egretta rufescens) nesting in tress or rookeries from TGLO bushes on dry demonstrate the project coastal islands with area is not within 300m thickets of yucca of a known rookery. and cacti Though mesquites are located within the project site, nesting is Builds nests of Sennett’s Hooded not expected and due to Spanish moss in Oriole NL R Yes No impact the minimal habitat (Icterus cucullatus mesquite trees or taken by this project sennetti) yuccas and mobility of this species, no impacts are expected. Uncommon Snowy Plover breeder in the No suitable habitat (Charadrius NL R Texas panhandle; No No impact exists in the vicinity of alexandrinus) potential migrant, the proposed project. winters along coast Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Unvegetated No estuarine habitats Sooty Tern NL T estuarine habitats, No No impact are located within the (Sterna fuscata) feeds over water. proposed project area. Southeastern Snowy Plover Wintering migrant No suitable habitat (Charadrius NL R along the Texas No No impact exists in the vicinity of alexandrinus Gulf Coast beaches the proposed project. tenuirostris) Upland prairie and Only in Texas grassland habitat is during migration present within the and winter; strongly proposed project area, tied to native Sprague’s Pipit C R Yes No effect however, due to the (Anthus spragueii) upland prairie but minimal habitat taken can be locally by this project and common in coastal mobility of this species grasslands no effects are expected. Inhabits open grasslands and bare fields and lots, No open short occasionally in Western grasslands or bare urban areas. Burrowing Owl NL R No No impact fields/lots are present in (Athene cunicularia Roosts in the proposed project hypugaea) abandoned area. burrows, drainage culverts, and rubble piles. Uncommon Western Snowy breeder in the No coastal habitat exists Plover NL R Texas panhandle; No No impact in the vicinity of the (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) potential migrant, proposed project. winters along coast Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Analysis of known colonial waterbird rookeries from TGLO demonstrate the project area is not within 300m of a known rookery. Lack of suitable wet Generally an areas limits potential estuarine species occurrence of this but frequently White-faced Ibis NL T Yes No impact species, however, it may (Plegadis chihi) observed in inland be present in Kinney marshes, irrigated Bayou or other areas fields, and canals following periods of heavy rainfall when standing water provides foraging habitat. If present, TxDOT/TPWD Bird BMPs will be implemented. Suitable habitat is present, however minimal habitat will be taken by this project, Inhabits therefore no impacts undeveloped are expected during coastal grasslands, non-nesting season. White-tailed Hawk NL T mesquite/live oak Yes May impact (Buteo albicaudatus) However, during white- savannas and open tailed hawk nesting chaparral of the season (Jan – July) South Texas Plains impacts may occur2. Nesting bird surveys and TxDOT/TPWD Bird BMPs will be implemented. Potential migrant via plains No suitable foraging throughout most of habitat is located within state to coast; Whooping Crane LE E No No effect the project area, (Grus americana) winters in coastal therefore no effects are marshes of Aransas, expected. Calhoun, & Refugio counties Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Analysis of known colonial waterbird rookeries from TGLO demonstrate the project area is not within 300m of a known rookery. Lack of suitable wet Feeds in prairie areas limits potential ponds, flooded occurrence of this Wood Stork NL T fields and Yes No impact species, however, it may (Mycteria americana) drainages, and in be present in Kinney forested wetlands Bayou or other areas following periods of heavy rainfall when standing water provides foraging habitat. If present, TxDOT/TPWD Bird BMPs will be implemented. Suitable habitat is present in the project area, however, only the Yellow-billed Open woodlands Western U.S. Distinct Cuckoo LT NL with low, dense, Yes No effect Population Segment of (Coccyzus americanus) scrubby vegetation this species, which does not occur in San Patricio County, is listed as Federally threatened. FISHES Suitable aquatic habitat exists south of where the proposed highway crosses Kinney Bayou. Only potential impact would be to water Coastal waterways quality from soil below reservoirs to distribution during American Eel NL R gulf; most No No impact (Anguilla rostrata) construction. A SW3P waterways with will be developed and access to ocean TxDOT/TPWD Water Quality BMPs for BMPs for erosion and stormwater management will be implemented. Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Suitable aquatic habitat exists south of where the proposed highway crosses Kinney Bayou. Only potential impact Broods in brackish would be to water and freshwater quality from soil Opossum Pipefish NL T inlets, young found No No impact distribution during (Microphis brachyurus) in marine construction. A SW3P environments will be developed and TxDOT/TPWD Water Quality BMPs for erosion and stormwater management will be implemented. Sheltered bays; estuaries; river mouths; adults No effects are expected Smalltooth have been LE E No No effect as this species is Sawfish encountered near (Pristis pectinata) extirpated from Texas. mangroves, reefs, seagrass beds, and coral No suitable aquatic Corpus Christi Bay; habitat exists in the Texas Pipefish NL R No No impact (Syngnathus affinis) seagrass beds vicinity of the proposed project. INSECTS Subtropical thorn and pine forests associated with the No habitat or host Manfreda host plant - Texas habitat exists in the NL R No No impact Giant-skipper tuberose vicinity of the proposed (Stallingsia maculosus) (Manfreda project. maculosa) or spice lily MAMMALS No dense thornshrub of Gulf Coast Large patches of sufficient quantity exists Jaguarundi LE E dense thornshrub, No No effect (Herpailurus within the proposed near water yaguarondi cacomitli) project area. Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Though some mesquite and scrub thickets are present in the project Large patches of area, the ocelot prefers dense chaparral communities with >95% Ocelot LE E thickets, mesquite- No No effect (Leopardus pardalis) canopy cover (Horne thorn scrub and live 2009), therefore, the oak mottes project area is not dense enough for this species to be present.3 Open fields, Suitable habitat is prairies, croplands, present in the project fence rows, Plains Spotted area and impacts could farmyards, and Skunk NL R Yes May impact be expected, therefore (Spilogale putorius forest edges. the TxDOT/TPWD BMPs interrupta) Prefers brushy for Plains Spotted Skunk areas and tallgrass will be implemented. prairie extirpated; Brushy and forested formerly known areas exist in the project throughout eastern area, however, no Red Wolf LE E half of Texas in Yes No effect (Canis rufus) effects are expected as brushy and forested this species is extirpated areas, as well as from Texas. coastal prairies Palm trees located Southern Yellow Roosts and pups in within the project area Bat NL T palm groves and Yes May impact may provide habitat. (Lasiurus ega) other woodlands. TxDOT/TPWD Bat BMPs will be implemented. No suitable habitat exists within the project area. Seagrass beds at the mouth and deeper waters of Kinney Bayou may provide habitat, West Indian Gulf and bay however, the project is Manatee LE E aquatic habitats No No effect 1-1.5 miles upstream of (Trichechus manatus) and seagrass beds. potential habitat and manatees are a rare local occurrence. Due to implementation of an SW3P and distance from the project area, no effects are expected.4 Woodlands, No suitable dense riparian corridors, White-nosed Coati NL T No No impact habitat exists within the (Nasua narica) and thornscrub proposed project area. habitats Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact MOLLUSKS Lentic and lotic freshwater in sand, No suitable aquatic gravel, or mud in habitat exists in the Golden Orb C T the Guadalupe, San No No effect (Quadrula aurea) vicinity of the proposed Antonio, lower San project. Marcos, and Nueces River basins REPTILES Potential habitat is Marine and located 1-1.5miles south estuarine habitats of the project area in warm shallow below the Kinney Bayou Atlantic Hawksbill waters in rocky crossing. An SW3P will Sea Turtle LE E environments, No No effect (Eretmochelys be implemented, juveniles found in imbricata) therefore preventing floating marine effects to water quality algae mats. Nests and subsequently on open beaches effects to sea turtles. Potential habitat is Marine and located 1-1.5miles south estuarine habitats of the project area in shallow seagrass below the Kinney Bayou beds, open water, crossing. An SW3P will Green Sea Turtle LT T No No effect (Chelonia mydas) and rocky be implemented, environments. therefore preventing Nests on open effects to water quality beaches and subsequently effects to sea turtles. Gulf Saltmarsh Saline flats, coastal There is no suitable Snake NL R bays, and brackish No No impact habitat within the (Nerodia clarkii) river mouths project area. Potential habitat is located 1-1.5miles south of the project area Marine and below the Kinney Bayou Kemp's Ridley Sea estuarine habitats; crossing. An SW3P will LE E No No effect Turtle nests on open be implemented, (Lepidochelys kempii) beaches therefore preventing effects to water quality and subsequently effects to sea turtles. The leatherback is highly pelagic and a rare visitor Open marine and to Texas waters, Leatherback Sea estuarine habitats; LE E No No effect therefore no suitable Turtle nests on open (Dermochelys coriacea) habitats are located beaches within or near the proposed project area.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Potential habitat is located 1-1.5miles south of the project area below the Kinney Bayou Marine and crossing. An SW3P will Loggerhead Sea estuarine habitats; LT T No No effect be implemented, Turtle nests on open (Caretta caretta) therefore preventing beaches effects to water quality and subsequently effects to sea turtles.
Moderately open prairie-brushland; Spot-tailed Earless fairly flat areas free Species is thought to be Lizard NL R of vegetation or Yes No impact extirpated from San (Holbrookia lacerata) other obstruction, Patricio County6. including disturbed areas Coastal marshes, tidal flats, coves, Texas estuaries, and Diamondback lagoons behind No suitable habitat Terrapin NL R barrier beaches in No No impact exists in the vicinity of (Malaclemys terrapin brackish and the proposed project. littoralis) marine waters. Burrows in mud when inactive. Open arid and semi-arid areas Suitable brushy, arid, with sparse sandy habitat containing vegetation harvester ant colonies is Texas Horned including grass, present in the project Lizard NL T cacti and brush. Yes May impact area and impacts could (Phrynosoma 7 cornutum) Sandy to rocky soil, be expected. burrows into soil, TxDOT/TPWD Horned rodent burrows, or Lizard BMPs will be under structures implemented. when inactive. South of Guadalupe River and Balcones Suitable woodland Escarpment. habitat may be present Texas Indigo Habitat includes in the project area and thornbrush- impacts could be Snake NL T Yes May impact (Drymarchon chaparral expected. TxDOT/TPWD melanurus erebennus) woodlands, dense Texas indigo snake riparian corridors, BMPs will be and suburban implemented. croplands. Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Texas Scarlet No suitable habitat is Mixed hardwood Snake NL T No No impact present in the proposed (Cemophora coccinea scrub on sandy soils lineri) project area. Open brush with Suitable brushy habitat grass understory, is present in the project rests near bases of area and impacts could cacti and bushes, Texas Tortoise NL T Yes May impact be expected.8 (Gopherus berlandieri) occasionally in TxDOT/TPWD Texas underground tortoise BMPs will be burrows or under implemented. objects Swamps, floodplains, deciduous No suitable habitat Timber woodlands, riparian NL T No No impact. exists in the vicinity of Rattlesnake zones and (Crotalus horridus) the proposed project. abandoned farmland with dense ground cover PLANTS This species is tolerant Coastal prairie of disturbance and Coastal gay- grasslands from grazing and suitable feather NL R low-lying salty Yes May impact soils are present in the (Liatris bracteata) prairie to upland project area therefore non-saline prairie impacts could be expected.9 Grassland openings in oak woodlands on deep, loose, well-drained sands. No suitable soils exist in In Coastal Bend, on Elmendorf’s Onion NL R No No impact the vicinity of the (Allium elmendorfii) Pleistocene barrier proposed project. island ridges and Holocene Sand Sheet that supports live oak woodlands. Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species in San Patricio County, Texas and Potential Impacts Federal State Description of Habitat Species Species Justification Status Status Suitable Habitat Present Effect/Impact Coastal prairies on clay soils; often in depressed areas, and areas where mowing may mimic natural prairie disturbances. Over level Victoria and Edroy clays, No suitable soils exist in Plains Gumweed NL R claypan, Greta No No impact the vicinity of the (Grindelia oolepis) within Orelia fine proposed project. sandy loam over Beaumont Formation, and Harlingen clay. Found on roadsides, right-of- ways, vacant lots and cemeteries Occurs on deep heavy black clays or Project area is not over sandy loams in Lissie Formation, Refugio rain-lily swales or drainages (Zephryanthes NL R No No impact therefore, no suitable on grasslands or refugiensis) habitat is present in the shrublands project vicinity. underlain by Lissie Formation Near coast in sparse vegetation on light- colored silt or fine Threeflower sand over saline No suitable soils exist in Broomweed NL R clay near tidal flats No No impact the vicinity of the (Thurovia triflora) or inland in proposed project area. vegetated slick spots on prairie mima mounds. Grasslands, varying from midgrass coastal prairies and open mesquite woodlands, gray to No suitable soils exist in Welder dark gray clayey to NL R No No impact the vicinity of the Machaeranthera silty soils. Mapped (Psilactis heterocarpa) proposed project. on Victoria clay, Edroy clay, Dacosta sandy clay loam over Beaumont and Lissie Formations
Federal Status: LE – Listed Endangered LT – Listed Threatened DL – De-listed C – Candidate NL – Not Listed
State Status: E – Endangered T – Threatened R – Rare
Citations
1 Hardegree, B., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication. 30 June 2014.
2 Rappole, J.H. and G.W. Blacklock. 1985. Birds of the Texas Coastal Bend Abundance and Distribution Texas A&M University Press: College Station.
3 Horne, JS, AM Haines, ME Tewes, and LL Laack. 2009. Habitat partitioning by sympatric ocelots and bobcats: implications for recovery of ocelots in South Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 54: 119-126.
4 Alford, S. 2012. “Manatee Spotted in Nueces, Corpus Christi Bays.” Corpus Christi Caller-Times 21 September.
5 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, North Florida Ecological Services Office, 2012. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/leatherback- sea-turtle.htm Accessed 25 June 2014.
6 The Nature Conservancy. Texas: Explore: Spot-tailed Earless Lizard. http://stage.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/texas/explore/reptiles-spot- tailed-earless-lizard.xml Accessed 1 July 2014.
7 Photolog – Appendix B, Photo 22
8 Photolog – Appendix B, Photo 15
9 Poole, JM, WR Carr, DM Price, and JR Singhurst. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
APPENDIX D
Texas Department of Transportation Traffic Data
126 127 128 129 130 131
APPENDIX E
Agency Correspondence: Texas Historical Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife – Tier I Texas Parks and Wildlife – Texas Natural Diversity Database Texas Parks and Wildlife – Coordination Update Farmland Protection Policy Act Texas General Land Office – Coastal Management Program United States Coast Guard Federal Emergency Management Agency
Kimberly McGlaun
From: Russell Hooten
Kim,
Thank you for your response regarding TPWD’s early coordination comments for SH 200. TPWD appreciates TxDOT’s and the City of Ingleside’s commitment to implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) discussed in the previous email. Based on a review of the documentation, the avoidance efforts described, and provided that the project plans do not change, TPWD considers coordination for SH 200 (CSJ: 3540-01-001) to be complete. However, please note it is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with all federal, state, and local laws that protect fish and wildlife.
Thanks, Russell
From: Kimberly McGlaun [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:23 AM To: Russell Hooten; WHAB_TxDOT Cc: Christopher Amy; Bill Reitmann; Michael Chavez; Jim Gray; '[email protected]'; Jay Gardner; Don Morrow ([email protected]) Subject: RE: SH 200 Project (CSJ 3540-01-001)
Russell,
Thank you for reviewing the SH 200 project. TxDOT and the City of Ingleside will implement the Tree Bat BMP along with the Bird, Plains spotted skunk, and Texas indigo snake BMPs. Please see below for the updated language to be included on the EPIC sheet of the plans:
1) The plains spotted skunk may be present in project area. The contractor will avoid harming this animal and unnecessarily impacting dens. 2) The Texas indigo snake may be present in project area. The contractor will avoid harming this animal if encountered. 3) The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) states that it is unlawful to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, or transport any migratory bird, nest, young, feather, or egg in part or in whole, without a federal permit. In accordance with this regulation, the Contractor will avoid disturbing, destroying, removing, or relocating active nests found in trees, culverts, bridges, on the ground, etc. Typical breeding season occurs from March through August; therefore, tree trimming and other activities that may disturb breeding birds should be done in the non-breeding season (September-February), when possible. If work must be performed during the breeding season, the Contractor shall have a qualified biologist conduct a survey of the right of way to determine if bird nests are present. In the event that active nests are encountered on-site during construction, the Contractor shall notify the Engineer and measures shall be taken to avoid disturbance of these birds, their occupied nest, eggs, and/or young, in accordance with the MBTA. Phasing of work during construction may be necessary to stay in compliance with the MBTA. The Contractor can discuss other preventative measures with the Project Engineer and/or District Environmental Staff.
1 4) To protect tree roosting bats, including the state-threatened southern yellow bat, the contractor will avoid unnecessary removal of dead fronds on native and ornamental palm trees. In the event that palm trees must be removed or trimmed, these activities will not occur between May 1st and August 1st.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thanks,
Kim
Kimberly McGlaun Corpus Christi District Texas Department of Transportation Office (361) 808-2545
From: Russell Hooten [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:21 PM To: Kimberly McGlaun; WHAB_TxDOT Cc: Russell Hooten Subject: RE: SH 200 Project (CSJ 3540-01-001)
Hi Kim,
I have reviewed the early coordination information provided for the proposed SH 200 project (3540-01-001) in San Patricio County. TPWD understands that the Programmatic Agreement BMPs to be included in the project plans are the Bird, Plains spotted skunk, and Texas indigo snake BMPs. Regarding the Bird BMP, it is TPWD’s understanding that if work must be performed during the breeding season, the Contractor will be instructed to either hire a qualified biologist to conduct nests surveys or enlist TxDOT’s District Environmental Staff for assistance. Given the evidence of nesting in the project corridor (see attached photos from March 5, 2014 site visit) it is likely that active nests would be encountered if clearing were to occur during the nesting season.
Also, BMP PA Attachment 2, Stream Crossings will be implemented by replacing the existing culvert at Kinney Bayou with a span bridge. Constructing a span bridge will minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources.
TPWD appreciates that these BMPs would be implemented.
Also, due to the presence of untrimmed palm trees in and near the proposed project corridor (see attached photos), primarily in the northern half of the project area, TPWD recommends implementing the Tree Bat BMP to avoid potential impacts to tree roosting bats which includes the state-listed threatened Southern yellow bat (Lasiurus ega). If TxDOT agrees to implement the Tree Bat BMP, coordination can be completed.
Thanks,
Russell
Russell Hooten Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program TPWD-Wildlife Division 6300 Ocean Drive, NRC 2501 Unit 5846 Corpus Christi, TX 78412
2 361-825-3240 Office NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
From: Kimberly McGlaun [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:28 AM To: WHAB_TxDOT Cc: Russell Hooten Subject: FW: SH 200 Project (CSJ 3540-01-001)
I apologize I did not include WHAB_TxDOT on the original email. Please see below for details of a request for early coordination on a TxDOT project.
From: Kimberly McGlaun Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:50 PM To: Russell Hooten ([email protected]) Cc: Don Morrow ([email protected]); Jay Gardner; Jim Gray; Christopher Amy Subject: SH 200 Project (CSJ 3540-01-001)
Russell,
Please see the attached TPWD Analysis Form and supporting documents for the SH 200 project in San Patricio County. I have also uploaded these documents into ECOS (CSJ 3540-01-001). We would like to begin the early coordination process. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Thanks,
Kim
Kimberly McGlaun Corpus Christi District Texas Department of Transportation Office (361) 808-2545
Don't mess with Texas® means don't litter.
Don't mess with Texas® means don't litter.
3 ECOS Forms – TPWD Analysis Form
Coordination Conditions:
Yes No Has the project previously completed coordination with TPWD?
If No, proceed to Tier I Site Assessment.
If Yes, is the project subject to a reevaluation or revisions as described below: Yes No Is the project the subject of a reevaluation or revision and the scope of revision relates to an issue on which TPWD previously commented?
Yes No Is the project the subject of a reevaluation or revision and a substantial change is proposed from the original coordination or new impacts now exceed a threshold?
If No to both : No Coordination Required- document this form in ECOS
If any Yes : Proceed to Tier I Site Assessment
Tier I Site Assessment
Triggers:
1.) Yes No Project is within the range of a state threatened or endangered species or SGCN and suitable habitat is present; Explanation: The project is within range of and suitable habitat is present for the plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta) and the Texas indigo snake (Drymarchon melanurus erebennus). Using NDD, four elements of occurrence were found within 1.5 miles of the project including a rookery (EOID 2721), jaguarundi (EOID 1473), keeled earless lizard (EOID 1060), and threeflower broomweed (EOID 858). The project is unlikely to impact the rookery and suitable habitat for these species is not present in the project area.
Yes No Does the BMP PA eliminate the requirement to coordinate? Explanation: Language will be included for the plains spotted skunk and Texas indigo snake on the EPIC sheet to inform the contractor that these species may be present in the project area and to avoid harming these animals if encountered.
2.) Yes No Project may adversely impact remnant vegetation; Explanation: No remnant vegetation found in the project area during site visit or in NDD (accessed March 26, 2014)
Version Date 08/30/13 3.) Yes No Project requires a NWP with PCN or IP by USACE; Explanation: The project will impact jurisdictional wetlands and PCN will be required.
4.) Yes No Project includes more than 200 linear feet of stream channel for each single and complete crossing one or more of the following that is not already channelized or otherwise maintained:
Yes No Channel realignment; or Yes No Stream bed or stream bank excavation, scraping, clearing, or other permanent disturbance. Explanation: Project includes approximately 200 linear feet of stream channel however no channel realignment or other permanent disturbance is required.
5.) Yes No Project contains known isolated wetlands outside the TxDOT ROW that will be directly impacted by the project; Explanation: No isolated wetlands outside ROW would be directly impacted by the project.
6.) Yes No Project may impact at least 0.10 acre of riparian vegetation; Explanation: Approximately 0.29 acre of riparian vegetation (within central Texas coastal prairie riparian TPWD ecosystem type) would be impacted by the project. This habitat has been previously disturbed, as evidenced by tire tracks and denudation of vegetation along both sides of stream channel.
Evaluate project using EMST Mapper Tool
7.) Yes No Does project disturb habitat in an area equal to or greater than the area of disturbance indicated in the Threshold Table Programmatic Agreement? Explanation: According to EMST data, the project would disturb approximately 16.94 acres of coastal grassland (threshold = 2 acres), 1.02 acres of riparian (threshold = 0.1 acre), 16.02 acres of tidal and salt marsh (threshold = 0.01 acre), 1.89 acres of disturbed prairie (threshold = 3 acres), and 0.27 acre of tallgrass prairie (threshold = 2 acres).
Attach associated Excel file of EMST Mapper Report in ECOS Excel File name: _SH 200 TPWD Habitat Impact Summary.xls
Yes No Is there a discrepancy between actual habitat(s) and EMST mapped habitat(s)? Explanation: Actual habitats were evaluated through a site visit on March 5, 2014. Actual habitats included approximately 27.70 acres of tidal and salt marsh, 7.24 acres of disturbed prairie, and 0.29 acres of riparian.
Version Date 08/30/13 Attach photo file of discrepancy between actual and EMST mapped habitat(s). Photo File name: _SH 200 TPWD Habitat Photos.docx Excel File name: _SH 200 TPWD Habitat Impact Summary.xls
Is Coordination Required?
Yes No – BMPs implemented and included in EPIC sheets No
Explanation: Language will be included on EPIC sheet to protect the plains spotted skunk and Texas indigo snake, however, coordination is required based on impacts to tidal and salt marsh, disturbed prairie, and riparian habitats being greater than thresholds for these habitats as outlined in MOU between TPWD and TxDOT.
The following will be included in Section V of EPIC sheet:
Action No. 1. The plains spotted skunk may be present in project area. The contractor will avoid harming this animal and unnecessarily impacting dens.
Action No. 2. The Texas indigo snake may be present in project area. The contractor will avoid harming this animal if encountered.
Action No. 3. To comply with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Contractor will avoid disturbing, destroying, removing, or relocating active nests found in trees, culverts, bridges, on the ground, etc. Typical breeding season occurs from March through August; therefore, tree trimming and other activities that may disturb breeding birds should be done in the non-breeding season (September-February), when possible. If work must be performed during the breeding season, the Contractor shall have a qualified biologist conduct a survey or the right of way to determine if bird nests are present. In the event that active nests are encountered on-site during construction, the Contractor shall notify the Project Engineer and measures shall be taken to avoid disturbance of these birds, their occupied nest, eggs, and/or young, in accordance with the MBTA. Phasing of work during construction may be necessary to stay in compliance with the MBTA. The Contractor can discuss other preventative measures with the Project Engineer and/or District Environmental Staff.
Action No. 4. To protect tree roosting bats, including the state-threatened southern yellow bat, the contractor will avoid unnecessary removal of dead fronds on native and ornamental palm trees. In the event that palm trees must be removed or trimmed, these activities will not occur between May 1st and August 1st.
Version Date 08/30/13 Project Summary Table EMST Mapped Habitats Common EcoSystem MOU Type EPA Level Eco Acres Region Coastal and Sandsheet: Deep Sand Grassland Central and Upper Texas Coast Dune and Coastal Grassland 0.71 Coastal Grassland Coastal Bend: Riparian Grassland Central Texas Coastal Prairie Riparian Riparian 1.02
Coastal: Sea Ox-eye Daisy Flats Texas Coast Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Tidal and Salt Marsh 1.25
Gulf Coast: Coastal Prairie Texas-Louisiana Coastal Prairie Coastal Grassland 16.23
Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Tidal and Salt Marsh 9.50 Western Gulf Gulf Coast: Salty Prairie Shrubland Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Tidal and Salt Marsh Coastal Plain 5.27
Invasive: Evergreen Shrubland Native Invasive Shrub and Woodland Disturbed Prairie 1.64
Native Invasive: Huisache Woodland or Shrubland Native Invasive Shrub and Woodland Disturbed Prairie 0.25
South Texas: Sandy Mesquite Woodland and Tamaulipan Savanna Grassland Tallgrass Prairie, 0.27 Shrubland Grassland Urban Low Intensity Urban Urban 1.69
Total Acres 37.83 Actual Mapped Habitats EcoSystem MOU Type Acres
Texas Saline Coastal Prairie Tidal and Salt Marsh 27.47 Texas Coast Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Tidal and Salt Marsh 0.23 (Sea Ox-eye Daisy Flats) Native Invasive Shrub and Woodland Disturbed Prairie 7.24 Central Texas Coastal Prairie Riparian Riparian 0.29 Urban Urban 2.6 Total Acres 37.83 SH 200 TPWD Coordination Analysis Habitat Photos Site Visit on March 5, 2014
Photo 1. View of Texas Saline Coastal Prairie (Tidal and Salt Marsh Habitat in TPWD/TxDOT MOU) facing north east in southern portion of project area from FM 1069 to tributary crossing. Habitat includes grassland vegetation with some woody vegetation occurring on saline soils.
Photo 2. View of tributary and associated riparian vegetation in southern portion of project area facing north.
Photo 3. View of Native Invasive Shrub and Woodland (Disturbed Prairie in TPWD/TxDOT MOU) near Welder Ranch Road facing south. Tree species included huisache (Acacia farnesiana), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), and oak (Quercus sp.).
Photo 4. View of of Texas Saline Coastal Prairie (Tidal and Salt Marsh Habitat in TPWD/TxDOT MOU) in northern portion of project area near SH 361 facing south. Habitat dominated by Spartina spartina and other salt-tolerant vegetation.
Photo 5. View of sea ox-eye daisy flats in northern portion of project area near SH 361 facing east. TXNDD Tracked Species in Project Area
Element Occurrence ID (EOID) 1473
Scientific Name Herpailurus yaguarondi
Common Name Jaguarundi
Global Rarity Rank G4 State Rarity Rank S1 Federal Status LE State Status E
First Observation Date
EO Data JAGUARUNDI CROSSING THE ROAD NEAR DUSK General Description
OAK SCRUB
Protection Comments
Management Comments
General Comments
Page 1 of 4 Element Occurrence ID (EOID) 1060
Scientific Name Holbrookia propinqua
Common Name Keeled Earless Lizard
Global Rarity Rank G4 State Rarity Rank SX Federal Status State Status
First Observation Date
EO Data
Protection Comments
Management Comments
General Comments
Page 2 of 4 Element Occurrence ID (EOID) 2721
Scientific Name Rookery
Common Name
Global Rarity Rank GNR State Rarity Rank SNR Federal Status State Status
First Observation Date 1978 Survey Date
EO Data NESTING COLONY OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON General Description
SPOIL ISLAND (1) ON THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY; ELEVATION IS 6 METERS
Protection Comments
Management Comments
General Comments
COLONY NUMBER 614-160
Page 3 of 4 Element Occurrence ID (EOID) 858
Scientific Name Thurovia triflora
Common Name threeflower broomweed
Global Rarity Rank G2G3 State Rarity Rank S2S3 Federal Status State Status
First Observation Date 1936 Survey Date
EO Data IN FLOWER General Description
Protection Comments
Management Comments
General Comments
Page 4 of 4
August 11, 2014
Naismith Engineering, Inc. Jay Gardner 4501 Gollihar Corpus Christi, TX 78411
Re: Proposed Ingleside Industrial Corridor San Patricio County, Texas CMP#: 14-1913-F5
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Based on information provided to the Texas Coastal Management Program on the above project, it has been determined that it will likely not have adverse impacts on coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs) in the coastal zone. However, siting and construction should avoid and minimize impacts to CNRAs. If a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers permit is required, it will be subject to consistency review under the Texas Coastal Management Program.
Please forward this letter to applicable parties. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (512) 475-3624 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ray Newby Coastal Geologist Texas General Land Office Coastal Resources Program
U. S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region 6 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209-3698
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY REGION VI MITIGATION DIVISION
NOTICE REVIEW/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION
We have no comments to offer. We offer the following comments:
WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR BE CONTACTED FOR THE REVIEW AND POSSIBLE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT. IF FEDERALLY FUNDED, WE WOULD REQUEST PROJECT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EO11988 & EO 11990.
John Davis Chief Building Official/ FPA City of Ingleside 2665 San Angelo Street Ingleside, TX 78362 361-776-2517
REVIEWER:
Mayra G. Diaz Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch Mitigation Division (940) 898-5541 DATE: July 25, 2014