Comment Response Matrix - Amazon Web...

Comment Response Matrix

Document Title CR 366 CSJ: 0917-17-038

Preparer Thomas Pickering Review Date

August 27, 2009

Document Date August 14, 2009 Organization TxDOT – Bryan Commenter Melisa Montemayor – East Region REC

Item Page Section Sent. Comment How Addressed New Page

QC/ Concurrence

1 3 Proposed Facility

Document references Appendix F for the proposed construction easement. Appendix F is TPWD coordination. Appendix H is the bridge layout. Please Revise. Recommend adding the dimensions of the temporary construction easement to this section.

Changed “Appendix F” to “Appendix H” 3

2 7 Endangered Species Acto of 1973

As per Diana Nobel’s memo dated 8-4-09 titled “Impact Assessment Language for Species Not Federally Protected Under the Endangered Species Act”, the call for the state listed species need to be “no impact” or “may impact”. Please modify Table 1 and the Timber Rattlesnake call to reflect this new set of guidance.

Changed effect calls; modified table 8-9

3 9 State Listed Threatened

Species potentially Affected

Please modify the title of this section and the Timber Rattlesnake call to reflect the new set of guidance provided by Diana Nobel 8-4-09 memo.

Modified title 9

4 17 Floodplains

Since this project will cause a disturbance within the floodplain, coordination with the local floodplain coordinator will be required. SOU Water Resources, Section 19, page 9.

Changed from “would not” to “would”

5 ETS Project Tab

Project Type change to “PCE” Easement Required “Yes”

Changed to “PCE” and easement required “yes”

6 EPIC Please fill in Section 404 Clean Water Act and Section 401 Water Quality

Filled-in all appropriate cells

Updated 31-Aug-09 9:23 AM 1 of 2

Comment Response Matrix

Updated 31-Aug-09 9:23 AM 2 of 2

Item Page Section Sent. Comment How Addressed New Page

QC/ Concurrence

7 Public Invlv

Fill in Public Involvement Tab MAPO has not been conducted yet

8 NRM Biology

Address all of the cells listed as “Unresolved” Add the appropriate areas of disturbance for the vegetation Impacts.

Filled-in all appropriate cells; added area of disturbance estimates

9 NRM Water Fill in all of the appropriate cells in the

NRM Water Section Filled-in all appropriate cells

10 HMM Fill in all the appropriate cells in the HMM

tab Filled-in all appropriate cells

PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION CR 366 at Lake Creek CSJ: 0917-17-038 Grimes County

August 2009

CR 366 at Lake Creek CSJ: 0917-17-038 Grimes County

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROPOSED ACTION ...........................................................................................1 A. Existing Facility ................................................................................................................ 1 B. Proposed Facility.............................................................................................................. 2 C. Funding.............................................................................................................................. 3 D. Need and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 4 E. Existing and Proposed ROW........................................................................................... 5

II. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING AREA ........................................................6 A. Geographic Setting .......................................................................................................... 6

1. Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 6 2. Soils and Geology ............................................................................................................ 6

B. Natural Region/Vegetation Type ..................................................................................... 6 1. Natural Region.................................................................................................................. 6 2. Vegetation Type ............................................................................................................... 6

III. SPECIFIC AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.......................................7 A. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 7

1. Endangered Species Act of 1973..................................................................................... 7 2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................................................................ 10 3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.................................. 10 4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ................................................................................. 10 5. Farmland Protection Policy Act ...................................................................................... 10 6. Invasive Species and Beneficial Practices on Landscaping .......................................... 10 7. TPWD Coordination ....................................................................................................... 10 8. Inside ROW .................................................................................................................... 11 9. Outside ROW ................................................................................................................. 11 10. Unusual Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 11 11. Special Habitat Features ................................................................................................ 12 12. Non-regulatory Mitigation ............................................................................................... 12 13. Natural Diversity Database Information ......................................................................... 13

B. Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 13 1. Community Impacts........................................................................................................ 13 2. Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 13 3. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) .................................................................................. 14

C. Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 14 1. Archeological Resources................................................................................................ 14 2. Historic Resources ......................................................................................................... 15 3. Section 4(f) ..................................................................................................................... 15

D. Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 15 1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Waters of the U.S. Nationwide Permits ............... 15 2. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: Water Quality Certification ................................... 16 3. Executive Order 11990, Wetlands.................................................................................. 16 4. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 .................................................................. 16 5. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act........................................................................... 16 6. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: TPDES, Construction General Permit ................. 16 7. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: TPDES, MS4........................................................ 17 8. Floodplains ..................................................................................................................... 17

E. Noise ................................................................................................................................ 17 F. Hazardous Materials or Waste Sites............................................................................. 17 G. Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 18

August 2009 i


August 2009 ii

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................18

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................18

APPENDIX......................................................................................................................19 A. 2000 Census Data.............................................................................................................. 20 B. Project Photos ................................................................................................................... 21 C. Funding Information.......................................................................................................... 24 D. TPWD Annotated County List .......................................................................................... 26 E. Archeology Coordination.................................................................................................. 30 F. TPWD Coordination ........................................................................................................... 38 G. EO Records ........................................................................................................................ 45 H. Bridge Layouts................................................................................................................... 46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species in Grimes County ............................ 7 Table 2. State listed threatened species in Grimes County ........................................................... 9 Table 3. State species of concern in Grimes County ..................................................................... 9 Table 4. Trigger questions for coordination with TPWD............................................................... 11 Table 5. Permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S. .............................................. 16

Table A-1. Summary by race for Tract 1803.02, Block Group 2, Blocks 2076 and 2079 ............ 20 Table A-2. Summary of language by age spoken at home .......................................................... 20 Table A-3. Median household income Block Group 2.................................................................. 20

Table G-1. EO records within 10-mi of the project area............................................................... 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project location map........................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2. USGS 7.5’ topographic map of the project area ............................................................. 2 Figure 3. Existing and proposed typical sections ........................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Proposed typical sections................................................................................................ 4

Figure H-1. Proposed bridge layout.............................................................................................. 46 Figure H-2. Proposed temporary construction easement layout.................................................. 46


I. Proposed Action The Bryan District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) plans to replace the existing bridge on County Road (CR) 366 at Lake Creek in Grimes County (Figures 1 and 2). The construction limits for this project are from 0.05-mi south of Lake Creek to 0.05-mi north of Lake Creek; the study limits of this project includes the project limits and all areas subject to temporary disturbance during construction. Project length is approximately 0.1-mi. A. Existing Facility The existing structure is a two-span steel stringer bridge on steel and timber bents with a clear roadway width of 14-ft (Photos 1 and 2). The existing bridge structure was

Figure 1. Project location map

August 2009 1


Figure 2. USGS 7.5’ topographic map of the project area constructed in 1977. It measures approximately 20-ft in length and has roadway and approach widths measuring approximately 18-ft (Figure 3). Existing average daily traffic (ADT) is 50 vehicles per day (VPD); design year ADT is 50 VPD. No speed limit is posted for this roadway. B. Proposed Facility The proposed project would replace the existing bridge with a box culvert. This proposed structure would be comprised of 4 - 5 x 5-ft precast box culverts and measure approximately 30-ft in length with a clear roadway width of 24-ft. The proposed bridge approaches would vary in width from 24 to 32-ft (Figure 4). It would be situated along the same alignment as the existing bridge. Because of limited space within the right of way (ROW) adjacent to the approaches, 24-in diameter pipes would be used to convey

August 2009 2


Figure 3. Existing and proposed typical sections roadside drainage. No utilities would likely require adjusting, but if adjustments are needed, they would be done prior to construction. A temporary construction easement (see Appendix H) would be needed to facilitate bridge construction and the removal of concrete debris that is presently in the channel beneath the existing bridge (Photo 3). C. Funding The proposed action will be funded under the Unified Transportation Program, 2008 Statewide Preservation Program (SPP), Category 6 Off-System Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation (refer to Appendix C for funding information). The total cost of the project is estimated to be $581,583.66 (estimate date 9-30-08). The funding for this project is 80% federal and 20% state. The project is included on the 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program/State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP/STIP). Estimated project letting is April 2010; estimated project completion is October 2010.

August 2009 3


Figure 4. Proposed typical sections D. Need and Purpose The proposed project is needed due to structural deficiencies of the existing bridge. The existing bridge scored a sufficiency rating of 22.4 on the TxDOT Bridge Inventory, Inspection and Appraisal System (BRINSAP), out of a possible score of 100. Any bridge with a BRINSAP rating below 50 is eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP), which provides partial federal funding for replacement or rehabilitation of eligible bridges on or off the state system that are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a safe and cost effective crossing of Lake Creek at CR 366 that would meet current design and safety standards. The goal and objectives of the proposed action are to cost-effectively provide a functionally sufficient bridge that meets current design standards for safety and maintainability while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to the human and natural environment.

August 2009 4


E. Existing and Proposed ROW The ROW width is 40-ft throughout the project limits. No additional ROW would be required for this project; approximately 0.14-ac of temporary construction easements would be required.

August 2009 5


II. Description of Surrounding Area A. Geographic Setting

1. Land Use Land use in the vicinity of the bridge is primarily improved pasture, with some areas of woodlands. There are no businesses or residences within the project limits. The project would not change existing or future land-use or development patterns and is consistent with planning as promulgated by Grimes County.

2. Soils and Geology Soils in the project area are mapped as Arol fine sandy loam (ArC) in the uplands and Nahatche clay loam (Na) in the floodplain. The project area is situated upon the Catahoula geologic formation. This formation was deposited during the Miocene epoch as a result of alluvial processes. It is composed of mudstone and sand with a thickness of 250 to 300-ft. B. Natural Region/Vegetation Type

1. Natural Region The project area lies within the “Blackland Prairies” natural region, as described in Preserving Texas’ Natural Heritage published in 1978 by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. This project area is situated within the floodplain of Lake Creek at an elevation of 340 to 350-ft above mean sea level. The project area is characterized by gently rolling hills bisected by small streams and gullies.

2. Vegetation Type Vegetation along the project is mapped as “Other Native/Introduced Grasses” (type 45) in The Vegetation Types of Texas published in 1984 by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). Commonly associated species in type 45 can include a mixture of native and introduced grasses and forbs. However, portions of the project area are heavily forest with regrowth superficially similar in species composition to the Pecan-Elm Forest (type 38). This forest type can include American elm (Ulmus americanus), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) with an understory that includes yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), briar (Smilax spp), and Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense).

August 2009 6


III. Specific Areas of Environmental Concern A. Biological Resources

1. Endangered Species Act of 1973 TPWD maintains annotated county lists of rare species (Appendix D). The list includes known threatened or endangered species, species of concern, and associated habitat, as identified by the USFWS and TPWD, which may occur in Grimes County. The project’s anticipated impacts upon federal listed threatened/endangered species are presented in Table 1. Five federally listed endangered species, two federal candidate species, four federally delisted species, and one federal listed threatened species can occur in Grimes County; the Red Wolf is locally extinct. Table 1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species in Grimes County

Common Name Status Call Justification Interior Least Tern LE 1 Preferred habitat (sandbars, man-made structures) absent Red-cockaded Woodpecker LE 1 Preferred habitat (Mature pine forests) absent Whooping Crane LE 1 Preferred stopover habitat (wetlands, marshes, etc) absent Red Wolf LE 1 Extirpated Navasota Ladies-tresses LE 1 Appropriate soils and vegetation associates absent in project area Louisiana Black Bear LT 1 Large tracts of inaccessible bottomland hardwoods absent Louisiana Pine Snake C 1 Preferred habitat (mixed deciduous-pine forests) absent Sharpnose Shiner C 1 Preferred habitat (large turbid river) absent American Peregrine Falcon DL 1 Preferred habitat (lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands) absent Arctic Peregrine Falcon DL 1 Preferred habitat (lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands) absent Bald Eagle DL 1 Preferred habitat (near large lakes and rivers) absent Peregrine Falcon DL 1 Preferred habitat (lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands) absent Status Key: LE=Federally listed endangered; LT=Federally listed threatened; DL=Federally delisted Effect Call Key: 1=No effect 2=May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Field surveys were conducted on October 10, 2008 and February 25, 2009 to assess the potential impact of the proposed project on vegetation and wildlife. These field surveys indicated that there are no federally listed threatened or endangered species or suitable habitat for any of these species within the project area. This project will have no effect on any federally listed species, its habitat, or designated critical habitat. Federally Listed Endangered Species Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) nests along sand and gravel bars within braided streams and rivers. It is also known to utilize man-made structures such as inland beaches, wastewater treatment plants, gravel mines, etc., as nesting sites. When breeding, it forages within a few hundred feet of the nesting site. Lake Creek is not a braided stream and does not contain sand or gravel bar deposits. There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat within or near the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no effect on the Interior Least Tern. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is a federally endangered bird species which occurs in east Texas. It requires open pine woodlands lacking dense midstory vegetation for nesting sites. They typically excavate cavity nests in older pines (60+ years) which have been infected with red heart fungus (Phellinus pini). The nearest

August 2009 7


documented occurrence of Red-cockaded Woodpecker was recorded approximately 7-mi southeast of the project area. Woodlands adjacent to the project area are dominated by a variety of hardwood species and contain dense midstory vegetation. Therefore, preferred nesting habitat does not occur within or adjacent to the project area. The proposed project will have no effect on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Whooping Crane (Grus americana) is a potential migrant through the area. They winter along the coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun, and Refugio counties. During migration they utilize shallow wetlands and agricultural fields. There are no records of whooping cranes in the vicinity and appropriate habitat does not occur within or near the proposed project area. The proposed project would have no effect on Whooping Crane. Navasota Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) in Grimes County is associated with soils of the Burlewash, Gullied Burlewash, Elmina, Shiro, Singleton, Tabor, Koether-Rock Outcrop, Gomery, Arol, and Lufkin series. Soils within the project area are classified as Nahatche clay loams which are not suitable for Navasota Ladies’-tresses occurrence. Associated vegetation and topographic features are not present within the project area. There are no historic records of Navasota Ladies’-tresses near the project area; no potential habitat exists within the project area. The proposed project would have no effect on the Navasota Ladies’-tresses. Federal Candidate Species The Louisiana Pine Snake (Pituophis ruthveni) is a federal candidate species with known occurrences in east Texas and western Louisiana. Preferred habitat consists of sandy, well drained soils, in conjunction with mixed deciduous-longleaf pine woodlands lacking a dense midstory. An open forest canopy, which permits the growth of a grass-dominated understory, is considered essential for the occurrence of pocket gophers, which serve as a primary food source. It spends a majority of its time underground in pocket gopher burrows which it uses for refuge and hibernation; it breeds from April through September. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 1.6-mi northeast of the proposed project area. The project area is characterized by a closed canopy forest dominated by hardwoods with dense midstory vegetation. This type of habitat is not conducive to the occurrence of the Louisiana Pine Snake. The project will have no effect on the Louisiana Pine Snake. Sharpnose Shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) is a federal candidate species endemic to the Brazos River system. It occupies large turbid rivers with substrates composed of sand, gravel, and clay-mud. Lake Creek lies within the San Jacinto River drainage basin and is a tributary of the West Fork San Jacinto River. The Sharpnose Shiner does not occur within the San Jacinto River system. A check of the NDD did not produce any occurrence records within the project area. The project would have no effect on the Sharpnose Shiner. State Listed Threatened Species There are six state listed threatened species in Grimes County consisting of two bird, one fish species, and three reptile species. The project’s anticipated impacts upon these state listed species are presented in Table 2. There is potential habitat (floodplain and riparian zone) within the ROW for the Timber Rattlesnake.

August 2009 8


Table 2. State listed threatened species in Grimes County Common Name Call Justification Wood Stork 1 Preferred foraging habitat (wetlands, marshes, etc) absent White-faced Ibis 1 Preferred habitat (marshes) absent Blue Sucker 1 Preferred habitat (rivers) absent Alligator Snapping Turtle 1 Deepwater habitat absent in project area Texas Horned Lizard 1 Open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation absent Timber Rattlesnake 2 Potential habitat (riparian zones, floodplains) present in project area Effect Call Key: 1=No impact 2=May impact

Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a state threatened reptile species that may occur in a variety of habitats including swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, and abandoned farmland. It can be found in association with a range of soil types from rocky to sandy soils and clays. It prefers areas with dense ground cover. Potential habitat for the Timber Rattlesnake is present within the project area. This potential habitat consists of dense brush and woodlands which occur along the fence line and adjacent to the ROW and within the riparian corridor of Lake Creek. Therefore, the proposed project may impact the Timber Rattlesnake. Texas Species of Concern Eleven Texas species of concern occur in Grimes County. An on-site survey detected none of these species (Table 3). Of these, five species are aquatic, consisting of freshwater mussels (False Spike Mussel, Pistolgrip, Rock Pocketbook, Smooth Pimpleback, and Texas Fawnsfoot). Suitable aquatic habitat may be present downstream for Pistolgrip and Smooth Pimpleback. Channel work will consist of the removal of concrete debris presently under the existing bridge to facilitate the installation of box culverts. Suitable terrestrial habitat may be present for Texas Meadow-rue. In order to minimize potential impacts to these species, BMPs would be implemented which would provide protection from any adverse effects which may be produced as a result of construction activities. Suitable terrestrial habitat may be present for Plains Spotted Skunk. Impacts upon species of concern are possible, but would be unlikely and only minimal. Table 3. State species of concern in Grimes County

Species Call Justification Henslow's Sparrow 1 Bare ground for running/walking absent in project area Plains Spotted Skunk 2 Wooded/brushy areas are present in the project area Southeastern Myotis Bat 1 No bat roosts observed in project area False Spike Mussell 1 Cobble and mud substrates with water lilies absent Pistolgrip 2 Silt and soft substrate present in project area Rock Pocketbook 1 Medium to large river habitat absent in project area Smooth Pimpleback 2 Small to moderate streams and rivers present in project area Texas Fawnsfoot 1 Rivers and large streams absent in project area Branched Gay-feather 1 Barren grassland openings in post oak woodlands absent Navasota False Foxglove 1 Calcareous sandstone outcrops of the Oakville Formation absent Texas Meadow-rue 2 Appropriate habitat may be present Effect Call Key: 1=No impact 2=May impact

August 2009 9


2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The project area was investigated for any structures containing migratory birds or indications of nesting migratory birds. No evidence of migratory bird nesting was observed. Migratory birds may arrive in the project area to breed during construction of the proposed project. Measures would be taken to avoid the take of migratory birds, their nests, eggs, or young, in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, through phasing of work or preventative measures.

3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act No essential fish habitat exists within the proposed project area. Therefore the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act do not apply.

4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The purpose of the proposed activity is to replace a structurally deficient bridge over Lake Creek. This action would require modifications to the existing stream channel. The activity would comply with all conditions applicable to Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 without a Pre-construction Notice (PCN). Since modifications are authorized under a Section 404 NWP, consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is not required.

5. Farmland Protection Policy Act As there is no additional required ROW, the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act and requires no coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

6. Invasive Species and Beneficial Practices on Landscaping Permanent soil erosion control features would be constructed as soon as feasible during the early stages of construction through proper sodding and/or seeding techniques. Disturbed areas would be restored and stabilized as soon as the construction schedule permits and temporary sodding would be considered where large areas of disturbed ground would be left bare for a considerable length of time. In accordance with E.O. 13112 on Invasive Species and the Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping, seeding with TxDOT approved seeding specifications that, to the extent practicable, is in compliance with E.O. 13112 would be done where possible. Moreover, abutting turf grasses within the ROW are expected to re-establish throughout the project length. Soil disturbance would be minimized to ensure that invasive species would not establish in the ROW.

7. TPWD Coordination Refer to Table 4 for responses to questions that trigger TPWD coordination. A response of “Yes” indicates that coordination with TPWD is required. The proposed project will require channel modifications, affect mature woody vegetation, and is within range and suitable habitat of a state listed threatened species (Timber

August 2009 10


Rattlesnake). Therefore, project activities required coordination with TPWD. Coordination with TPWD was completed on April 15, 2009 (see Appendix F). Table 4. Trigger questions for coordination with TPWD.

Trigger Questions Response Does the project involve more than 1.0 acre of new ROW within floodplains or creek drainages in rural or undeveloped urban areas? No

Does the project require channel modifications to streams, rivers, or water bodies? Yes Does the project involve a channel re-alignment involving the creation of new drainage ways or other excavation impacting more than 1.0 acre of mature woody vegetation? No

Does the project require any excavation (scraping, clearing or other surface disturbance) of the existing channel outside of TxDOT’s existing ROW or of the channel inside the ROW which is not routinely maintained and exhibits native vegetation?

No

Might the project affect mature woody vegetation or dense mature brush, including any significant remnant native vegetation (e.g., undisturbed native prairie or bottomland hardwood, etc.) Yes

Is the project within range and in suitable habitat of any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species? Yes

Does the project involve mitigation plans or otherwise involve proposals to redress project impacts on fish, wildlife or plant resources? No

Does the project have previous environmental clearance, three years have passed without major action(s), without TPWD review but now meets any of the above listed criteria? No

Have three years passed since environmental clearance with major actions, the TPWD may have or may not have reviewed, but meets any of the above listed criteria? No

8. Inside ROW

Within the ROW and along the fence lines, the project area contains both open pasture areas and a forested riparian corridor. Vegetative cover is approximately 80%. The open portions of the ROW are dominated by grass and forb species consisting of Johnson grass and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Riparian vegetation inside the ROW consists of inland seaoats (Chasmanthium latifolium), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), and grapevine (Vitis spp), under a canopy of American elm, water oak, black walnut (Juglans nigra), pecan (Carya iilinoiensis), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Mature tree heights range from 40- to 50-ft and diameter at breast height (dbh) measurements range from 6- to 12-in. Northwest of the bridge there is a wooded area, similar to the riparian corridor. Approximately 0.35-ac of roadside vegetation will be impacted by the proposed project. Approximately 60 immature and mature trees would require removal along the east side of the ROW.

9. Outside ROW Outside of the ROW, most areas are pasture with a mix of native and introduced grasses. Mature woody vegetation adjacent to the ROW consists of American elm, black walnut, pecan, and sugarberry. Grasses outside of the ROW are similar to those found in the ROW.

10. Unusual Vegetation Unusual vegetation as described in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between TxDOT and TPWD, includes unmaintained vegetation, fencerow vegetation, riparian vegetation, unusually large trees for the area, or unusual/isolated stands of vegetation.

August 2009 11


Fencerow vegetation associated with Lake Creek consists of mid-mature to mature tree specimens with a canopy cover of approximately 50%. Species composition is primarily pecan, black walnut, water oak, sugarberry, and American elm. Mature tree heights range from 40- to 50-ft, and diameters range from 6- to 12-in. The understory is composed of saplings of the canopy species, along with yaupon, giant ragweed, grapevine, poison ivy, Johnson grass, and inland seaoats. The riparian corridor is composed of species similar in composition and age to those found along the fencerow. However, the west side of the ROW is dominated by introduced pasture grasses along with giant ragweed, Johnson grass, and inland seaoats. Approximately 0.04-ac of riparian vegetation will be impacted by this project.

11. Special Habitat Features Special habitat features as described in the MOA between TxDOT and TPWD, include bottomland hardwoods, caves, cliffs and bluffs, native prairies, ponds, seeps or springs, snags, water bodies, and bird or bat colonies in structures. There is one special habitat feature within the project area. Lake Creek is a perennial stream with a substrate composed of silt and clay. The creek channel is approximately 12-ft wide and 5-ft deep (refer to Section III.A.10 for a description of vegetation within the riparian corridor).

12. Non-regulatory Mitigation Approximately 0.35-ac of roadside vegetation will be disturbed by this project; 0.04-ac of this consists of riparian vegetation. Approximately 60 mature and sapling trees will require removal. Mature specimens requiring removal consist of pecan, black walnut, and sugarberry. Sapling species requiring removal include black walnut, redbud, sugarberry, and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata). In accordance with Provision (4)(A)(ii) of the MOA between TxDOT and TPWD, habitats given consideration for non-regulatory mitigation during project planning include the following: 1. habitat for Federal Candidate species (impacted by the project) if mitigation would

assist in the prevention of the listing of the species; 2. rare vegetation series (S1, S2, or S3) that also locally provide habitat for a state-

listed species; 3. all vegetation communities listed as S1 or S2, regardless of whether or not the series

in question provides habitat for state-listed species; 4. bottomland hardwoods, native prairies, and riparian sites; and 5. any other habitat feature considered locally important that the TxDOT District

chooses to consider. The riparian vegetation (0.04-ac) being disturbed meets the consideration for non-regulatory mitigation. Impacts to this habitat would be limited to the ROW. Riparian vegetation that would not be disturbed is similar in species composition and age structure to that being removed. Impacts are expected to be temporary and vegetation would re-establish over time. Because of the minimal impacts associated with the bridge replacement and expected re-establishment of woody vegetation through natural

August 2009 12


succession processes, TxDOT does not propose compensatory mitigation for this activity. Mitigation would also not be required for any regulatory habitat.

13. Natural Diversity Database Information The Natural Diversity Database (NDD), which is maintained by TPWD, was reviewed in order to assess the potential for endangered or threatened species to occur within the project limits. Information contained in the NDD is not meant to be interpreted as presence/absence data. It merely depicts locations where species, plant communities, animal assemblages, etc. have been observed in the past. The NDD was accessed on October 1, 2008 and rechecked on July 27, 2009 (Biotics Mimic version date 2/12/09) to obtain a report detailing Elements of Occurrence (EO) for listed species and managed areas within 1.5-mi and 10-mi of the project area. The EO report indicated that there are no occurrence records for threatened/endangered species, species of concern, terrestrial communities, or animal assemblages within a 1.5-mi radius of the project area. There are no managed areas within 1.5-mi of the project area. A review of the NDD employing a 10-mi search radius yielded 35 EO records for threatened/endangered species, species of concern, terrestrial communities, animal assemblages, and managed areas (see Appendix G). B. Socioeconomics

1. Community Impacts Population characteristics of the general area are summarized in Appendix A. The demographic composition of the area can be described as predominantly white (71%) according to data from the 2000 census for Census Tract 1803.02, Block Group 2, Blocks 2076 and 2079. This proposed project would not displace any people, farms, or businesses; therefore, relocation will not be required. The proposed project will not affect, separate, or isolate any district neighborhoods, ethnic groups, or other specific groups. Moreover, the proposed project will improve safety and mobility in the area through the installation of a wider bridge structure.

2. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations” requires “each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” 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 in or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income populations.

August 2009 13


FHWA defines a “disproportionately high adverse effect” as one that is (1) predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. The 2009 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guideline for a family of four is $22,050. The project area is situated within an unpopulated portion of rural Grimes County. Consequently, there are no potential Environmental Justice populations/communities in the project area.

3. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 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. Based on site visits, LEP populations are absent in the project area. LEP populations are not expected to be discriminated against as a result of the proposed project. If the need to accommodate LEP populations arises, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that they are included in the project development process and that effective communication is established and maintained. C. Cultural Resources Cultural resources are structures, buildings, archeological sites, districts (a collection of related structures, buildings, and/or archeological sites), cemeteries, and objects. Both federal and state laws require consideration of cultural resources during project planning. 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 such as this one. In addition, state laws such as the Antiquities Code of Texas apply to these projects. Compliance with these laws often requires consultation with the Texas Historical Commission (THC)/Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or federally-recognized tribes to determine the project’s effects on cultural resources. Review and coordination of this project followed approved procedures for compliance with federal and state laws.

1. Archeological Resources Based on the archeological study, no further investigation is warranted. The background study found that the project area had been extensively disturbed, precluding the possibility of it containing any intact archeological deposits. Consultation with federally-recognized Native American tribes with a demonstrated historic interest in the area was initiated on March 5, 2009. No objections or expressions of concern were received within the comment period (see Appendix E). In the event that unanticipated archeological deposits are encountered during construction, work in the immediate area will cease, and TxDOT archeological staff will be contacted to initiate post-review discovery procedures.

August 2009 14


2. Historic Resources A review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the list of State Archeological Landmarks (SAL), and the list of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHL) indicated that no historically significant resources have been previously documented within the area of potential effects (APE). It has been determined through consultation with the SHPO that the APE for the proposed project is the current ROW. A site visit conducted by TxDOT personnel revealed that there are no historic-age structures (built prior to 1965) within the project APE. There are no Official Texas Historical Markers (OTHM). Pursuant to Stipulation V “Undertakings with No Potential to Affect Historic Resources” of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Implementation of Transportation Undertakings (PA-TU) between the FHWA, the Texas SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and TxDOT and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), TxDOT historians determined that the proposed action has no potential to affect historic properties and that individual project coordination with the Texas SHPO is not required.

3. Section 4(f) The proposed project will not require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge lands or historic sites of national, state or local significance. Therefore, a 4(f) evaluation is not required. There are no properties subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act or Chapter 26 of Vernon’s Code of Civil Statutes (Texas Parks and Wildlife Code) directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. D. Water Resources

1. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Waters of the U.S. Nationwide Permits An analysis of USGS topographic maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, and field reconnaissance reveals that there is one jurisdictional water of the U.S. (Lake Creek) that would be impacted by the proposed project (Photos 4 and 5). The placement of temporary or permanent dredge or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be authorized under NWP 14 without a Pre-Construction Notice (PCN). The purpose of the proposed activity is to construct the linear transportation facility at Lake Creek. Appropriate measures would be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding. Temporary fills would consist of materials and be placed in a manner that would not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills would be removed in their entirety and the affected area returned to pre-construction elevations and revegetated as appropriate. Stream channel modifications, including bank stabilization, would be limited to the minimum necessary to construct or protect the structure and the immediate vicinity of the project. The activity would comply with all general and regional conditions applicable to NWP 14.

August 2009 15


A PCN for NWP 14 at Lake Creek would not be required because estimated permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. would not exceed 0.1-ac (Table 5). There is no potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitat, or any historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Table 5. Permanent and temporary impacts to waters of the U.S.

Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Water Body Proposed Work

Waters Wetlands/Special Aquatic Sites Waters Wetlands/Special

Aquatic Sites NWP PCN

Lake Creek Box culvert installation 0.02-ac 0.0-ac 0.03-ac 0.0-ac 14 No

2. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act: Water Quality Certification

The 401 Certification requirements for NWP 14 would be met by implementing approved BMPs from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 401 Water Quality Certification Conditions for Nationwide Permits. The BMPs will address each of the following categories: • Category I Erosion control • Category II Sedimentation Control • Category III Post construction total suspended solids control Category I would be addressed by applying temporary reseeding to disturbed areas; Category II would be addressed by installing, silt fences; Category III would be addressed by planting permanent vegetation to create vegetative lined ditches. These ditches would accept roadway runoff as sheet flow and filter it along the front slopes of the ditches as well as the bottom of the ditch. Other approved methods may be substituted if necessary using one of the BMPs from the identical category.

3. Executive Order 11990, Wetlands No wetlands are located within the project area; therefore the proposed project would not impact wetlands or any special aquatic sites.

4. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 This project does not involve work in or over a navigable water of the U.S., therefore Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act does not apply.

5. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Runoff from this project would not discharge directly into Section 303(d) listed threatened or impaired water, or into a stream within 5 miles upstream of a Section 303(d) listed threatened or impaired water. The 2008 303(d) list was utilized in this assessment.

6. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: TPDES, Construction General Permit This project would include less than one acre of earth disturbance, and is not part of a larger common plan of development that would disturb one or more acres, therefore the

August 2009 16


TCEQ Texas Pollution Elimination System (TPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) does not apply.

7. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act: TPDES, MS4 This project is not located within the boundaries of a regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4).

8. Floodplains The project is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain. The hydraulic design for this project would be in accordance with current FHWA and TxDOT design policies. The facility would permit the conveyance of the 100-year flood, inundation of the roadway being acceptable, without causing significant damage to the facility, stream or other property. The proposed project would not increase the base elevation to a level that would violate applicable floodplain regulations and ordinances. Coordination with the local Floodplain Administrator would be required. E. Noise The proposed project would not be on new location, would not substantially alter either the horizontal or vertical alignment, and would not increase the number of through-traffic lanes; therefore, a traffic noise analysis is not required by TxDOT's (FHWA approved) “Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise.” 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. However, construction normally occurs during daylight hours when occasional loud noises are more tolerable. No extended disruption of normal activities is 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 work-hour controls and proper maintenance of muffler systems. F. Hazardous Materials or Waste Sites Based on the following project activities, bridge demolition and replacement, an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted to identify potential hazardous materials in the project area. The ISA consisted of the following actions: site visit, regulatory agency database search, and land use review. An analysis of the ISA data indicates that this project will not involve the acquisition of known unresolved contamination where TxDOT could reasonably expect to assume liability for corrective action upon acquisition. In addition, this project does not involve known hazardous materials impacts that could be anticipated to adversely affect construction (e.g. can not resolve before letting or during construction). The proposed project includes the demolition of one bridge. The bridge may contain asbestos containing materials (ACM) and shall be inspected to verify the presence or absence of ACM. Prior to the bridge demolition, a 10-Day Notification shall be submitted to the Department of State Health and Human Services (DSHS).

August 2009 17


Activities associated with bridge demolition will include the removal of steel beams that my have the potential to contain Lead Based Paint (LBP). Prior to project letting, the steel coatings on the bridge to be demolished will be analyzed for the presence or absence of LBP. If LBP is discovered, contingencies would be developed to address worker safety, material recycling and proper management of any paint related wastes, as necessary. Any unanticipated hazardous material and/or petroleum contamination encountered during construction would be handled according to applicable federal and state regulations per TxDOT Standard Specifications. G. Air Quality This project is located within Grimes County which is in an area of attainment of all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); therefore, the transportation conformity rule does not apply. Generally, bridge replacements are considered exempt from a Transportation and Air Quality Analysis (TAQA) because they are intended to enhance traffic safety and improve traffic flow. The proposed action would not add capacity to an existing facility. Current and future emissions should continue to follow existing trends not being affected The purpose of this project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge. This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of existing roadways, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative. As such, TxDOT/FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special Mobile Source Air Toxin (MSAT) concerns. Consequently, this project is exempt from analysis for MSATs. Moreover, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over the next 20 years. Even after accounting for a projected 64% increase in VMT, FHWA predicts MSATs will decline between 57 to 87% from a baseline year of 2000 to 2020 based on the current vehicle and fuel regulations in effect. These reductions will both reduce the background level of MSATs.

IV. Public Involvement No new ROW is required for this project and the project will not result in a change of access; temporary construction easements are required. A meeting of affected property owners (MAPO) will be conducted regarding the need for temporary construction easements. The road will be closed during the demolition and construction of the new facility. Temporary road closure notification letters were sent to affected property owners and local authorities. In addition, a news release will be issued to local newspapers and other media. The project is not expected to generate any controversy.

V. Conclusion Based on the engineering, social, economic and environmental studies conducted for this proposed project, TxDOT believes that no significant environmental effects would result. Therefore, the project meets the criteria for a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion under NEPA guidelines.

August 2009 18


Appendix

August 2009 19


A. 2000 Census Data Table A-1. Summary by race for Tract 1803.02, Block Group 2, Blocks 2076 and 2079

Census Tract 1803.02, Block 2076 Census Tract 1803.02, Block 2079 Total 66 0 Hispanic or Latino 4 0 Not Hispanic or Latino: 62 0

Population of one race: 62 0 White alone 47 0 Black or African American alone 15 0

Table A-2. Summary of language by age spoken at home

Census Tract 1803.02 Census Tract 1803.02, Total: 3,120 920 5 to 17 years: 700 192

Speak only English 676 173 Speak Spanish: 17 17

Speak English "very well" 2 2 Speak English "well" 5 5 Speak English "not well" 2 2 Speak English "not at all" 8 8

Speak other Indo-European languages: 2 2 Speak English "very well" 2 2

Speak Asian and Pacific Island languages: 5 0 Speak English "very well" 5 0

18 to 64 years: 1,969 575 Speak only English 1,821 515 Speak Spanish: 96 30

Speak English "very well" 54 8 Speak English "well" 8 0 Speak English "not well" 20 8 Speak English "not at all" 14 14

Speak other Indo-European languages: 45 30 Speak English "very well" 37 30 Speak English "not well" 8 0

Speak Asian and Pacific Island languages: 7 0 Speak English "well" 7 0

65 years and over: 451 153 Speak only English 439 145 Speak Spanish: 6 4

Speak English "very well" 6 4 Speak other Indo-European languages: 6 4

Speak English "very well" 6 4

Table A-3. Median household income Block Group 2

Block Group 2 Median household income in 1999 36,818

August 2009 20


B. Project Photos

Photo 1. Bridge deck and roadway approaches (view south).

Photo 2. Bridge deck and roadway approaches (view north).

August 2009 21


Photo 3. Concrete in creek channel (view east).

Photo 4. Lake Creek downstream (view east).

August 2009 22


Photo 5. Lake Creek upstream (view west).

August 2009 23


C. Funding Information DCIS P01 Screen UPDATE MODE 07/24/09 PROJECT ID (P01) 16:24:57 ENGLISH DCIS.02A CTL-SEC-JOB 0917 - 17 - 038 HWY NO CR_____ DIST 17 CNTY GRIMES 94_ BEG MILE POINT _0.000 END MILE POINT _0.100 PROJECT LENGTH MI __0.100 BEG REF MARKER NUM ___0 SUFFIX _ DISPLACEMENT __0.000 DFO ___0.000 END REF MARKER NUM ___0 SUFFIX _ DISPLACEMENT __0.000 DFO ___0.000 LIMITS FROM ON CR 366 (LOCAL CR 240)___________ TRM UPDATE FLAG _ TO AT LAKE CREEK______________________ PROJ CLASS BR_ TYPE OF WORK GRADING, STRUCTURES, BASE AND SURFA SPEC BOOK YEAR 04 LAYMANS DESC REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING BRIDGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF____ GRADING, STRUCTURES, BASE AND SURFACE_______________________ OVERSIGHT S LET SCH FY 2010 __ RESP. SECTION FAA FUNCTIONAL CLASS 7 FED LETTER OF AUTH __ _0 _0 INFLATION % 4.00 DISTRICT OVER % 0.00_ STATE LETTER OF AUTH _0 _0 LATEST EST OF CST COST 450000________ UTP AUTHORITY C CONS DATE OF LATEST EST 09 30 08 PRES DIST EST LET DATE _4 10 AUTHORIZED AMOUNT 392000 TRUNK SYS N APPROVED LET DATE _0 _0 CONTRACT CSJ 091717038 NHS N ACTUAL LET DATE _0 _0 HURR EVAC RTE _ PROJ NUM BR 2002(659)________ PROJ ANCESTORS 091717912 _________ _________ _________ _________ ROW CSJ: PROJ DESCENDENTS _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ REMARKS STR. NO. 017094AAO336001; PE=$17,600 04/02__________________ Enter-PF1---PF2---PF3---PF4---PF5---PF6---PF7---PF8---PF9---PF10--PF11--PF12-- UPDT FIN EVAL EST SUM UTP STIP METR COR TPC PE MENU DCIS P10 Screen DCS2B010-NO CHANGES MADE; PLEASE CONTINUE. P10 - Total Project Cost (BY CSJ) % of Est Current Estimate Auth. Cost (includes inflation) (includes inflation) Construction 468,000.06 359,091.20 PE 4.90 22,932.00 17,595.46 ROW 0.00 0.00 Bond Finance 0.00 0.00 CE 7.50 35,100.00 32,318.20 Contingencies 7.00 32,760.00 28,727.29 Indirect 4.87 22,791.60 20,432.28 Current Total Project Cost For CSJ 091717038 581,583.66 Enter-PF1---PF2---PF3---PF4---PF5---PF6---PF7---PF8---PF9---PF10--PF11--PF12--- ID FIN EVAL EST SUM UTP STIP COST COR TPC PE MENU

August 2009 24


2008-2011 STIP Grouped Projects

August 2009 25


D. TPWD Annotated County List

August 2009 26


August 2009 27


August 2009 28


August 2009 29


E. Archeology Coordination

August 2009 30


August 2009 31


August 2009 32


August 2009 33


August 2009 34


August 2009 35


August 2009 36


August 2009 37


F. TPWD Coordination

August 2009 38


August 2009 39


August 2009 40


August 2009 41


August 2009 42


August 2009 43


August 2009 44


G. EO Records Table G-1. EO records within 10-mi of the project area

EO ID Species Common Name Class Federal Status

State Status

260 Schizachyrium scoparium-Sorghastrum nutans Series

Little Bluestem-Indiangrass Series Terrestrial Community

408 Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Vertebrate Animal LE E

1278 Spiranthes parksii Navasota Ladies’-tresses Vascular Plant LE E














4059 Rookery Animal Assemblage


4552

Pinus taeda-Quercus stellata-Quercus marilandica/Vaccinium arboreum Series

Loblolly Pine-Post Oak-Blackjack Oak/Farkleberry Forest Terrestrial Community







5462 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Vertebrate Animal T




6543 Schizachyrium scoparium-sorghastrum nutans Series






7458 Pituophis ruthveni Louisiana Pine Snake Vertebrate Animal C T




MA150 Sam Houston Nat’l Forest Managed Area Key: LE=Federally Listed Endangered; C=Federal Candidate for Listing; E, T=State Listed Endangered/Threatened; SOC=Species of Concern; G4/S4=Globally/Nationally Apparently Secure

August 2009 45


August 2009 46

H. Bridge Layouts

Figure H-1. Proposed bridge layout

Figure H-2. Proposed temporary construction easement layout

Comment Response Matrix - Amazon Web...

Documents

Transcript of Comment Response Matrix - Amazon Web...