Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department Building Replacement Project Brazoria County, Texas October 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 This document was prepared by 10550 Richmond Avenue, Suite 155 Houston, Texas 77042 12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150 Germantown, Maryland 20876 Contract No. HSFEHQ-06-D-0489 Task Order No. 08-J-0025 15708825.00300 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1-1 SECTION TWO PURPOSE AND NEED 2-1 SECTION THREE ALTERNATIVES 3-1 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action 3-1 3.2 Alternative 2: New Parks and Recreation Department Facility (Proposed Action) 3-1 3.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 3-1 SECTION FOUR AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 4-1 4.1 Physical Resources 4-1 4.1.1 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 4-1 4.1.2 Air Quality 4-2 4.2 Water Resources 4-3 4.2.1 Surface Water 4-3 4.2.2 Groundwater 4-3 4.2.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands 4-4 4.2.4 Floodplains 4-4 4.3 Coastal Resources 4-4 4.4 Biological Resources 4-5 4.5 Cultural Resources 4-7 4.6 Socioeconomic Resources 4-9 4.6.1 Socioeconomics 4-9 4.6.2 Environmental Justice 4-9 4.6.3 Hazardous Materials 4-10 4.6.4 Noise 4-11 4.6.5 Transportation 4-11 4.6.6 Public Health and Safety 4-12 4.7 Summary 4-12 SECTION FIVE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 5-1 SECTION SIX PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6-1 SECTION SEVEN AGENCY COORDINATION 7-1 SECTION EIGHT CONCLUSIONS 8-1 SECTION NINE REFERENCES 9-1 SECTION TEN LIST OF PREPARERS 10-1 Appendix A Figures Appendix B Preliminary Site Plan Appendix C Photograph Log Appendix D Agency Coordination APE Area of Potential Effects BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibel DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act GLO Texas General Land Office HGAC Houston Galveston Area Council NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb lead PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T&E threatened and endangered TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCMP Texas Coastal Management Plan TDEM Texas Department of Emergency Management THC Texas Historical Commission TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TWDB Texas Water Development Board USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USCB U.S. Census Bureau USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WOUS Waters of the United States SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION On September 13, 2008, Hurricane Ike struck the Texas Gulf Coast, causing extensive damage. Subsequently, a Presidential Disaster Declaration, FEMA-1791-DR-TX, was signed for Hurricane Ike. High winds associated with Hurricane Ike caused a large tree to break and fall onto the City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department building, causing severe damage. The building has since been demolished due to public health and safety concerns. The City of Clute, Texas, has submitted an improved project application for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program being administered in response to FEMA-1791-DR-TX for the replacement and expansion of the City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department Building. In accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 10, FEMA has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and FEMA’s regulations implementing NEPA (44 CFR Part 10). FEMA is required to consider potential environmental impacts before funding or approving actions and projects. The purpose of this EA is to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department Building Replacement Project. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The City of Clute is located southeast of Lake Jackson and approximately 60 miles south of Houston in south central Brazoria County, Texas. The proposed project consists of constructing a new Parks and Recreation Department Building at the former building site located at 100 Parkview Drive, within the Clute Municipal Park (Appendix A, Figure 1). SECTION TWO PURPOSE AND NEED On September 13, 2008, high winds associated with Hurricane Ike caused a large tree to break and fall onto the City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department building. The building sustained severe damage to interior and exterior building components from the fallen tree and subsequent exposure to wind driven rain. The damages exceeded the 50% repair/replacement ratio, meeting FEMA’s criteria for demolition and replacement of the building. The building has since been demolished due to public health and safety concerns. The Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains the City’s five (5) municipal parks, the Clute Municipal Pool, and the Clute Community Center. The Parks and Recreation Department also coordinates the City’s special events, including the annual Great Texas Mosquito Festival at Clute Municipal Park. In addition to department operations, the building also provided the community with a room for receptions and special events. The Parks and Recreation Department is currently leasing office space at the BASF Building located at 218 Highway 332 in Clute. Consequently, there is a need to provide the Parks and Recreation Department with a suitable permanent replacement facility at Clute Municipal Park. The City has submitted an improved project application to FEMA for the construction of a new, larger facility that would include space for a new community center and visitor’s bureau. A larger facility would also meet the increased public demand for the delivery of public services since the original facility was constructed in 1984. The proposed project would provide the Parks and Recreation Department with a new permanent facility and additional park amenities to better serve the community, and would support local tourism for the City. SECTION THREE ALTERNATIVES This section describes the alternatives that were considered in addressing the purpose and need stated in Section 2 above. Two alternatives are evaluated in this EA: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and the Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2), which is the construction of a new Parks and Recreation Department building. Reconstruction of the building within its original footprint was also considered and dismissed from further consideration. 3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION Under the No Action Alternative, the City of Clute would not construct a replacement facility. The Parks and Recreation Department would continue operating without a permanent facility, leasing office space at the BASF Building located at 218 Highway 332 in Clute. Park amenities at Clute Municipal Park would not be restored to pre-disaster condition because the community would no longer have a venue at the park for reception and special events. 3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: NEW PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITY (PROPOSED ACTION) Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the City of Clute proposes to use FEMA funding, in conjunction with City reserve funding, for an Improved Project to construct a new 12,452-square foot Parks and Recreation Department Building. The new building would be constructed at the former building’s location, and include office space for the City’s Park and Recreation Department, a visitor’s bureau, and a community center. Construction of the new building would require demolition of the former building’s concrete slab foundation, tree removal, and site leveling and grading (Appendix A, Figure 2). The new building would connect to existing water and sewer utilities that served the former building. The existing parking lot located along Parkview Drive would provide parking for the new facility. A preliminary site plan for the proposed facility is provided in Appendix B (Figure 3). A photographic log of the proposed project site is provided in Appendix C. 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED The City of Clute also considered options to rebuild the former facility on its pre-disaster footprint. However, the City determined that the original foundation of the former building does not meet current windstorm requirements and that it is not feasible to modify, remove, or replace it. In addition, replacement of the building to its pre-disaster footprint and size would not accommodate the increased public demand for public services at Clute Municipal Park. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration. SECTION FOUR AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section describes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and the No-Action Alternative. Where potential impacts exist, conditions or mitigation measures to offset these impacts are detailed. A summary table is provided in Section 4.7. 4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity According the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet, the project area is in the Alluvium sediment deposits in the Holocene epoch of the Quaternary time period. Alluvium is defined as an unconsolidated accumulation of stream-deposited sediments, including clay, silt, sand, and organic matter abundant locally, and includes point-bat, natural levee, stream channel, back swamp, coastal marsh, mud-flat, and narrow beach deposits (Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2011a). A review of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map for the Lake Jackson, Texas quadrangle indicates that the elevation of Clute is relatively flat at 10 to 15 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88; USGS 2010). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) online Web Soil Survey, the proposed project site contains soils classified as Pledger clay. The Pledger series consists of very deep, moderately well-drained, very slowly permeable soils on nearly level floodplains. The soils formed from calcareous stratified clayey alluvium. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent (USDA/NRCS 1997). The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) states that Federal agencies must “minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses…” The resources protected by the FPPA include prime and unique farmland. These lands are categorized by the USDA/NRCS based on underlying soil mapping units. Pledger clay is classified as a prime farmland soil (USDA/NRCS 2009). A letter requesting project review was sent to the NRCS on September 14, 2011. In a response letter dated September 19, 2011, the NRCS identified the site as farmland areas that are already converted to urban uses and therefore excluded from the FPPA (Appendix D). Executive Order (EO) 12699 (Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction) establishes responsibilities regarding the seismic-related safety of buildings owned, leased, or funded by Federal agencies. Under this EO, each Federal agency responsible for the design and construction of a Federal or federally funded building must ensure that the building is designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate seismic design and construction standards. The Texas gulf coastal region is located along the Gulf-margin Normal Faults, a fault belt with strikingly low historical seismicity; the stress field and seismogenic potential of the underlying crust are unknown; and, therefore, the ability of the fault belt to generate significant seismic ruptures that could cause damaging ground motion is unclear (Wheeler 1999, USGS 2011). According to the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps, the Texas Gulf Coast, including the proposed project area, is located in the lowest hazard probability area for seismicity (USGS 2008). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to geology or soils. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction activities would not be deep enough to impact underlying geologic resources. However, minor, short-term impacts to 0.5 acre of soils would occur during demolition of the former building foundation, site preparation, and construction of the new building. Soils on the proposed project site have been previously disturbed from previous land clearance and development of the municipal park, and from construction of the former Parks and Recreation Department Building. The applicant would be required to submit Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit applications and obtain these permits prior to construction. Implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required at the construction location. BMPs could include the installation of silt fences and the revegetation of disturbed soils to minimize erosion. Excavated soil and waste materials will be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. If contaminated materials are discovered during construction activities, the work will cease until the appropriate procedures and permits can be implemented. 4.1.2 Air Quality The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that States adopt ambient air quality standards. The standards have been established to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. Under the CAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary air quality standards protect the public health, including the health of “sensitive populations, such as people with asthma, children, and older adults.” Secondary air quality standards protect public welfare by promoting ecosystem health, and preventing decreased visibility and damage to crops and buildings. The EPA has set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has adopted EPA’s NAAQS as Texas’ criteria pollutants. Areas that fail to meet Federal standards for ambient air quality are considered non-attainment. The General Conformity Final Rule (40 CFR Parts 51) specifies criteria or requirements for conformity determinations for Federal projects. The General Conformity Rule ensures that the actions taken by Federal agencies in nonattainment and maintenance areas do not interfere with a state’s plans to meet national standards for air quality. TCEQ and EPA consider Brazoria County a severe non-attainment area for O3 (TCEQ 2011).  Agency letters requesting project review were sent to the EPA and TCEQ on September 14, 2011. No responses have been received to date. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no effect on air quality. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no long-term impacts to air quality would occur. Short-term, minor impacts to air quality may occur during construction. To reduce these impacts, the construction contractors would be required to water down construction areas to control dust when necessary. Emissions from fuel-burning internal combustion engines (e.g., heavy equipment and earthmoving machinery) could temporarily increase the levels of some of the criteria pollutants, including CO, NO2, O3, PM10, and non-criteria pollutants such as volatile organic compounds. To reduce the emission of criteria pollutants, fuel-burning equipment running times would be kept to a minimum and engines would be properly maintained. 4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 Surface Water The Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended in 1977, established the basic framework for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States (WOUS). The proposed project site contains no surface water features. The proposed project site is located 0.7 mile south of Oyster Creek, 2.8 miles north of the Brazos River, and 8.0 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. Several freshwater lakes and ponds are located within 0.5 mile of the proposed project site. Stormwater runoff from Clute Municipal Park primarily drains into a concrete, v-bottom drainage ditch which extends east-west through the park then north to the Velasco Drainage Ditch. The Velasco Drainage Ditch flows to the northeast into Oyster Creek. A 3-foot-wide concrete ditch, located at the intersection of Emerald Drive and Parkview Drive, provides additional stormwater conveyance along the southeast corner of the park, include the proposed project site. The concrete ditch conveys stormwater to a catch basin, located in the southeast corner of the park, which drains south under Marion Street into the Temple Drainage Ditch. The Temple Drainage Ditch extends south from Marion Street to the Clute/Lake Jackson Ditch, located along Highway 332/288, which drains into Flag Lake Drainage Canal and East Union Bayou (USGS 2010). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to surface waters. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, minor short-term impacts to offsite surface waters may occur due to transport of sediment from disturbed soils by stormwater runoff during construction. To reduce impacts, the applicant would implement appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils. The applicant would also be required to obtain TPDES and SWPPP permits prior to construction. 4.2.2 Groundwater The Gulf Coast Aquifer forms a wide belt along the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Mexico. In Texas, the aquifer provides water to all or parts of 54 counties and extends from the Rio Grande northeastward to the Louisiana-Texas border. Municipal and irrigation uses account for 90 percent of the total pumpage from the aquifer. The Greater Houston metropolitan area is the largest municipal user, where well yields average about 1,600 gallons/minute (TWDB 2011b). According to the TWDB Groundwater Database, previous groundwater levels recorded at a City of Clute Water Plant (State Well Number 6561918), located at the southwest corner of Clute Municipal Park, were recorded at 86 feet below the land surface (TWDB 2009). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to groundwater. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to groundwater are anticipated. The proposed facility would connect to existing water and sanitary sewer connections associated with the former building; therefore no new water well or septic systems would be installed. Construction activities are not anticipated to reach a sufficient depth to directly impact groundwater. 4.2.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOUS, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Additionally, EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts to wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) of the project area was reviewed to identify the potential for wetlands and/or other WOUS to occur within the project area. The NWI map identified no wetlands on or adjacent to the proposed project site (USFWS 2011a). A site visit by a FEMA Environmental Specialist on August 18, 2011, confirmed that no wetland or other WOUS are present on the proposed project site. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to wetlands or other WOUS. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to WOUS including wetlands, would occur. Appropriate BMPs would be implemented to minimize soil erosion and reduce sediment transport to offsite surface waters and wetland areas. 4.2.4 Floodplains EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA uses Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to identify the regulatory 100-year floodplain for the National Flood Insurance Program. Consistent with EO 11988, FIRMs were examined during the preparation of this EA. The proposed project site is location within Flood Zone X, outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains (FEMA 1989; Community Panel Number 48039C0620H). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to floodplains. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction would take place outside the 100-year floodplain and the proposed project would have no impact on the floodplain. 4.3 COASTAL RESOURCES The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) enables coastal States, including Texas, to designate State coastal zone boundaries and develop coastal management programs to improve protection of sensitive shoreline resources and guide sustainable use of coastal areas. The Texas General Land Office (GLO) monitors and manages coastal zone actions in partnership with the Federal government under the CZMA within the Texas Coastal Zone. All federally funded projects must be consistent with the Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP). The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, administered by USFWS, was enacted to protect sensitive and vulnerable barrier islands found along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines. The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), which is composed of undeveloped coastal barrier islands, including those in the Great Lakes. With limited exceptions, areas contained within a CBRS are ineligible for direct or indirect Federal funds that might support or promote coastal development, thereby discouraging development in coastal areas. According to the GLO Coastal Zone Boundary Map, the proposed project site is located within the Texas Coastal Zone (Texas GLO 2011). A review of the USFWS CBRS maps identified that the proposed project site is located outside of the CBRS (USFWS 2011b). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to coastal resources. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the City of Clute would construct a new Parks and Recreation Department Building to replace the former structure at the same location. Although the new building would be enlarged to accommodate a community center and other park services, the project is not intended to promote additional development within the coastal zone; rather it is meant to meet the existing community’s demand for additional public services at Clute Municipal Park. In addition, the proposed project site is not located within the CBRS and is not anticipated to promote additional development within the Texas Coastal Zone. An agency consultation letter was submitted to the GLO requesting project review and consistency determination with the TCMP (Appendix D). No response has been received to date. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the USFWS and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. The ESA also prohibits any action that causes a "taking" of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife. The USFWS lists the following federally threatened and endangered (T&E) species for Brazoria County: Common Name: Piping Plover Scientific Name: Charadrius melodus Status: T Common Name: West Indian manatee Scientific Name: Trichechus manatus Status: E Common Name: Hawksbill sea turtle Scientific Name: Eretmochelys imbricata Status: E Common Name: Leatherback sea turtle Scientific Name: Dermochelys coriacea Status: E Common Name: Kemp's Ridley sea turtle Scientific Name: Lepidochelys kempii Status: E Common Name: Green sea turtle Scientific Name: Chelonia mydas Status: T Common Name: Loggerhead sea turtle Scientific Name: Caretta caretta Scientific Name: T Source: USFWS 2011c; T = Threatened, E = Endangered In addition to the federally listed T&E species, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) also lists the following state-listed threatened and endangered species for Brazoria County: Common Name : American Peregrine Falcon Scientific Name : Falco peregrinus anatum Status: T Common Name : Bald Eagle Scientific Name : Haliaeetus leucocephalus Status: T Common Name : Brown pelican Scientific Name : Pelecanus occidentalis Status: E Common Name : Eskimo Curlew Scientific Name : Numenius borealis Status: E Common Name : Peregrine Falcon Scientific Name : Falco peregrinus Status: T Common Name : Piping Plover Scientific Name : Charadrius melodus Status: T Common Name : Reddish Egret Scientific Name : Egretta rufescens Status: T Common Name : Sooty Tern Scientific Name : Sterna fuscata Status: T Common Name : White-faced Ibis Scientific Name : Plegadis chihi Status: T Common Name : White-tailed Hawk Scientific Name : Buteo albicaudatus Status: T Common Name : Whooping Crane Scientific Name: Grus Americana Status: E Common Name: Wood Stork Scientific Name: Mycteria americana Status: T Common Name: Smalltooth Sawfish Scientific Name: Pristis pectinata Status: E Common Name: Jaguarundi Scientific Name: Herpailurus yaguarondi Status: E Common Name: Louisiana Black Bear Scientific Name: Ursus americanus luteolus Status: T Common Name: Ocelot Scientific Name: Leopardus pardalis Status: E Common Name: Red Wolf Scientific Name: Canis rufus Status: E Common Name: False spike mussel Scientific Name: Quadrula mitchelli Status: T Common Name: Smooth pimpleback Scientific Name: Quadrula houstonensis Status: T Common Name: Texas fawnsfoot Scientific Name: Truncilla macrodon Status: T Common Name: Alligator snapping turtle Scientific Name: Macrochelys temminckii Status: T Common Name: Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle Scientific Name: Eretmochelys imbricata Status: E Common Name: Texas horned lizard Scientific Name: Phrynosoma cornutum Status: T Common Name: Timber/Canebrake rattlesnake Scientific Name: Crotalus horridus Status: T Source: TPWD 2011; T = Threatened, E = Endangered A site visit was conducted by a FEMA Environmental Specialist on August 18, 2011. The proposed project site is located within Clute Municipal Park and consists of the former Parks and Recreation Department Building’s foundation and adjacent park open space. The open spaced area consists of maintained grass lawn with ten (10) trees located adjacent to the former building foundation and within the proposed project boundary. The majority of the trees observed in the project area consisted of Southern Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana), ranging from 3 to 12 inches in diameter. Four (4) larger trees are also observed within the project area, and include approximate 24- and 60-inch Southern Live Oaks, a 36-inch Green Ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica), and a 16-inch Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii). The 60-inch Southern Live Oak was severely damaged during Hurricane Ike, and a large portion of the tree subsequently broke and fell onto the former Parks and Recreation Department Building. Park amenities, including playground equipment, sandpit volleyball courts, and a covered pavilion, are located to the north and west of the proposed project site. No habitat for any federally or state-listed threatened and endangered species was identified during the site reconnaissance. According to the USFWS Migratory Bird Program (USFWS 2011d), the State of Texas is located within the Central Flyway where lands may provide resting, feeding, and breeding grounds for migratory birds, especially flocking species. The proposed project area has the potential to provide open upland resting for many species of birds; however, the area is urbanized and therefore not likely to attract migratory birds. Higher quality habitat exists in undeveloped lands throughout the Clute and Lake Jackson area, and the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located 8.5 miles east of the project area. The Brazoria NWR, San Bernard NWR, and Big Boggy NWR form the Texas Mid-Coast Refuge Complex. According to the USFWS, the refuge complex “forms a vital complex of coastal wetlands harboring more than 300 bird species. … it serve(s) as an end point of the Central Flyway for waterfowl in winter, and an entry point for neotropical migratory songbirds tired from a 600-mile Gulf crossing from Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula” (USFWS 2009). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to biological resources, including Federal and state protected species. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, 0.5 acre of previously disturbed park open space would be cleared. Site preparation would require the removal of approximately 10 trees (ranging from 3 to 60 inches in diameter). Smaller trees would potentially be relocated or transplanted into the landscaping for the proposed building. The proposed project site provides little habitat for wildlife and no suitable habitat for any federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species. No impacts to threatened and endangered species or migratory birds are anticipated. Based on these findings, FEMA has determined that the proposed project would have “No Effect” on federally listed T&E species or migratory birds, and that coordination with USFWS is not required. A consultation letter requesting project review was sent to the TPWD on September 14, 2011. In a response letter dated September 26, 2011, TPWD stated that it does not anticipate significant adverse impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species, or other fish and wildlife resources (Appendix D). 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, (PL 89-665; 16 USC 470 et seq.) as amended, outlines Federal policy to protect historic properties and promote historic preservation in corporation with States, Tribal Governments, local governments, and other consulting parties. The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and designated the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as the entity responsible for administering State-level programs. The NHPA also created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), the Federal agency responsible for overseeing the Section 106 process and providing commentary on Federal activities, programs, and policies that affect historic properties. Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) outline the procedures for Federal agencies to follow to take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties. The Section 106 process applies to ant Federal undertaking that has the potential to affect historic properties, defined in the NHPA as those properties (archaeological sites, standing structures, or other historic resources) that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although buildings and archaeological sites are most readily recognizable as historic properties, a diverse range of resources are listed in the NRHP, including roads, landscapes, and vehicles. Under Section 106, Federal agencies are responsible for identifying historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for an undertaking, assessing the effects of the undertaking on those historic properties, if present, and considering ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse effects of its undertaking on historic properties, it is the primary regulatory framework that is used in the NEPA process to determine impacts on cultural resources. A FEMA Historic Preservation Specialist, qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61), conducted a review of known cultural resources within the APE. The APE is the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. For above-ground and archaeological resources, the APE consists of the proposed project site, which is located at the intersection of Parkview Drive and Emerald Drive, on the southeast corner of Clute Municipal Park. A cultural records search was conducted of the Texas Historical Commission (THC) Historic and Archaeological Sites Atlases for known archaeological and historic resources. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located on or adjacent to the proposed project site, nor are there any nearby properties listed as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark. No resources individually listed on the NRHP or listed as part of a designated historic district are located on or adjacent to the proposed project site. In addition, the proposed project area has been significantly modified from development of the municipal Park and associated infrastructure; therefore, the potential for existing and intact below-ground archaeological resources is low due to extensive ground disturbance. Based on these findings, FEMA has made a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” for the proposed undertaking. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement between FEMA, THC, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) dated August 30, 2005, FEMA has submitted its findings and determination to THC for review and concurrence. An agency response letter from the THC dated September 29, 2011, provided concurrence to FEMA’s determination. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and no historic properties would be affected. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to archeological or cultural resources are anticipated. 4.6 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 4.6.1 Socioeconomics The City of Clute is associated with Brazosport, a multi-city community located in south Texas at the mouth of the Brazos and San Bernard rivers.  Located approximately 50 miles south of Houston, the Brazosport area is comprised of eight cities: Clute, Freeport, Jones Creek, Lake Jackson, Oyster Creek, Quintana, Richwood, and Surfside Beach.  Brazosport is the home of the largest basic chemical complex in the world, which includes chemical manufacturing, petro-chemical processing, varied other manufacturing, offshore extraction support complexes, deep-water port activities, airport, tourism, sports and commercial fishing (Brazosport Area Chamber of Commerce 2010). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) American Fact Finder, in 2010 the total population of the City of Clute was estimated to be 11,211 persons (USCB 2011), with 7,791 citizens over the age of 16 participating in the work force (USCB 2009). Leading employment sectors are service occupations (22.9 percent); sales and office occupations (22.6 percent); construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations (19.3 percent); management, professional, and related occupations (17.6 percent); production, transportation, and material moving occupations (17.6 percent) (USCB 2009). No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to socioeconomic resources would occur. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, impacts to socioeconomic resources would be minimal. No permanent employment positions would be created or lost, although temporary jobs may be created during the construction period. 4.6.2 Environmental Justice EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) mandates that Federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Socioeconomic and demographic data for the project area were reviewed to determine if a disproportionate number of minority or low-income persons have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Socioeconomic and demographic data for the project area were reviewed to determine if a disproportionate number of minority or low-income persons have the potential to be adversely affected by the proposed project. The following information was gathered from the USCB 2011 State and County Quickfacts, the USCB 2010 Census, and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey. Total Population (2010) City of Clute : 11,211 Brazoria County: 313,166 State of Texas: 25,145,561 Annual median household income City of Clute : $38,277 Brazoria County: $66,516 State of Texas: $48,286 % Households below poverty level City of Clute : 17.1% Brazoria County: 10.1% State of Texas: 17.1% % Minority population (excluded) City of Clute : 11.8% Brazoria County: 18.2% State of Texas: 16.4% % Hispanic (may be of any race) City of Clute : 34.6% Brazoria County: 27.7% State of Texas: 37.6% % of population over 65 City of Clute : 8.5% Brazoria County: 9.4% State of Texas: 10.2% Source: USCB 2009, 2010, 2011 Minorities represented 46.4 percent, 45.9 percent, and 54.0 percent, respectively, of the City of Clute, Brazoria County, and the State of Texas populations. The following table shows the specific racial composition of the City of Clute, Brazoria County, and the State of Texas. Ethnicity: White City of Clute: 38.0% Brazoria County: 53.2% State of Texas: 45.3% Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino City of Clute: 54.0% Brazoria County: 27.7% State of Texas: 37.6% Ethnicity: Black or African American City of Clute: 7.4% Brazoria County: 12.1% State of Texas: 11.8% Ethnicity: American Indian or Native Alaskan City of Clute: 0.1% Brazoria County: 0.6% State of Texas: 0.7% Ethnicity: Asian City of Clute: 0.4% Brazoria County: 5.5% State of Texas: 3.8% Ethnicity: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander City of Clute: — Brazoria County: — State of Texas: 0.1% Source: USCB 2009, 2011; Note: “—“ represents zero or rounds to zero No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, construction of the new facility would not occur and there would be no disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the City of Clute would construct a new Parks and Recreation Department Building to replace the former structure at the previous location. The facility would be enlarged to include space for a new community center to meet the increased public demand for the delivery of public services since the former facility was constructed in 1984. The proposed project would not result in the acquisition of additional land or displacement of any population or businesses. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority or low-income portions of the population – all populations would benefit from the proposed project. 4.6.3 Hazardous Materials Hazardous substances are defined as any solid, liquid, contained gaseous, or semisolid waste, or any combination of wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. Hazardous substances are primarily generated by industry, hospitals, research facilities, and the government. Improper management and disposal of hazardous substances can lead to pollution of groundwater or other drinking water supplies, and the contamination of surface water and soil. The primary Federal regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous substances are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A review of the EPA EnviroMapper for Envirofacts and TCEQ Central Registry online databases identified no known hazardous material sites on or adjacent to the proposed project sites (EPA 2011; TCEQ 2010). In addition, a review of the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) Closed and Abandoned Landfill Inventory identified no known sites in the vicinity of the proposed project site (HGAC 2011). A site visit was conducted by a FEMA Environmental Specialist on August 18, 2011. No hazardous or toxic materials or sites were observed on or adjacent to the proposed project site. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to hazardous materials or waste. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no hazardous materials or waste impacts are anticipated. Construction would occur within the Clute Municipal Park, on and adjacent to the former Park and Recreation Department Building site. Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during construction would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. 4.6.4 Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is an average measure of sound. The DNL descriptor is accepted by Federal agencies as a standard for estimating sound impacts and establishing guidelines for compatible land uses. EPA guidelines, and those of many other Federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, or hospitals. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to noise levels in the project area. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, temporary short-term increases in noise levels are anticipated during the construction period. The proposed project site is located on the southeast corner of Clute Municipal Park and borders residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the park. Additional nearby noise sensitive receptors include the First Baptist Church of Clute, Jerome Catholic Church, and two schools (T.W. Ogg Elementary School and Brazoswood High School). To mitigate noise impacts to these noise sensitive receptors, construction activities would take place during normal business hours. Equipment and machinery installed at the proposed project site would meet all local, State, and Federal noise regulations. 4.6.5 Transportation The proposed project site is located on the southeast corner of Clute Municipal Park at 100 Parkview Drive. The proposed project site is accessed to the north by Parkview Drive via Brazoswood Drive, and to the east by Emerald Drive via North Oaks Street and North Shanks Street. A large public parking lot for Clute Municipal Park is located along the eastern boundary of the proposed project site on Parkview Drive. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to transportation. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, a minor, short-term increase in construction traffic on roadways adjacent to the proposed project site could potentially result in slower traffic flow during construction. The existing parking lot located along Parkview Drive would provide sufficient parking for the new building and would not be modified or expanded. Construction activities would also have minor, short-term impacts to the availability of public parking at Clute Municipal Park – a portion of the parking lot would be partitioned off from public use during construction to allow construction equipment and vehicles to access the proposed project site and parking of construction workers’ personal vehicles. No road closures are anticipated. Minor long- term impacts to traffic levels in the vicinity of Clute Municipal Park may occur from increased public use of the new community center and other building and park amenities. 4.6.6 Public Health and Safety EO 13045 (Protection of Children) requires Federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. Safety and security issues considered in this EA include the health and safety of area residents, the public-at-large, and the protection of personnel involved in the activities related to the proposed construction of the project. No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no impacts to public health and safety. Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, construction activities could present safety risks to those performing the activities and the general public. To minimize risks to public safety and human health, appropriate signage and barriers would be put in place around the proposed project site to prohibit public access to the project area. In addition, all construction activities would be performed by qualified personnel trained in the proper use of the appropriate equipment, including all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. 4.7 SUMMARY The following table summarizes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and conditions or mitigation measures to offset those impacts. Affected Environment: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts - No impacts to geology or seismicity are anticipated. Minor, short-term impacts to soils would occur during site preparation and construction of the new building. No impacts to prime and unique farmlands will occur. Mitigation - A SWPPP and a TPDES permit must be obtained prior to construction. Implementation of appropriate BMPs would be required at the construction location, including installation of silt fences and revegetation of soils. Affected Environment: Air Quality Impacts - Minor, short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the construction period. Mitigation - Construction contractors would be required to water down construction areas when necessary. Fuel-burning equipment running times would be kept to a minimum and engines would be properly maintained. Affected Environment: Surface Water Impacts - Minor, short-term impacts to offsite surface waters may occur due to transport of sediment from disturbed soils by stormwater runoff during construction. Mitigation - The applicant has obtained a SWPPP and a TPDES permit for the project. Appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt fences and revegetating bare soils, would reduce impacts. Affected Environment: Groundwater Impacts - No impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Mitigation - None Affected Environment: Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands Impacts - No impacts to wetlands or other WOUS are anticipated. Mitigation - Appropriate BMPs would be implemented to minimize soil erosion and reduce sediment transport to offsite surface waters and wetland areas. Affected Environment: Floodplains Impacts - No impacts to floodplains are anticipated. Mitigation - None Affected Environment: Coastal Resources Impacts - The new building would be constructed within the Texas coastal zone. However, the proposed project is neither intended nor anticipated to promote additional development within the coastal zone. The proposed project site is not located within the CBRS. Mitigation - None Affected Environment : Biological Resources Impacts - Minor long-term impact to biological resources from clearing of 0.5 acre of park open space vegetation (trees and mowed grass areas) for development of the new building. No impacts to any federally and state-listed protected species or their habitats are anticipated. Mitigation - None Affected Environment: Cultural Resources Impacts - No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. Affected Environment: None Affected Environment: Socioeconomics Impacts - No adverse socioeconomic impacts are anticipated.Temporary jobs may be created during site construction. Mitigation - None Affected Environment: Environmental Justice Impacts - No disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or low-income populations is anticipated. All populations would benefit from the proposed project. Mitigation - None Affected Environment: Hazardous Materials Impacts - No hazardous materials or waste impacts are anticipated. Mitigation - Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during construction would be disposed of and handled in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Affected Environment: Noise Impacts - Short-term impacts to noise levels would occur at the proposed project site during the construction period. Mitigation - Construction would take place during normal business hours and equipment would meet all local, State, and Federal noise regulations. Affected Environment: Transportation Impacts - Short-term, minor increases in the volume of construction traffic on adjacent roadways of the proposed project site could potentially result in slower traffic flow during construction activities. Mitigation - Construction activities would also have minor, short-term impacts to the availability of public parking at Clute Municipal Park. Minor long-term impacts to traffic levels in the vicinity of Clute Municipal Park may occur from increased public use of the new community center and other building and park amenities. Construction vehicles and equipment would be stored on-site during project construction and appropriate signage would be posted on affected roadways. The appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. Affected Environment: Public Health and Safety Impacts - None Mitigation - Appropriate signage and barriers would be put in place around the proposed project site to prohibit public access to the project area. All construction activities would be performed by qualified personnel and in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations. SECTION FIVE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS According to CEQ regulations, cumulative impacts represent the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).” In accordance with NEPA and to the extent reasonable and practical, this EA considered the combined effect of the Proposed Action Alternative and other actions occurring or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Communities located along the Texas Gulf Coast are undergoing recovery efforts after Hurricanes Ike and Dolly caused extensive damages. The recovery efforts in the area include demolition, reconstruction, and new construction. These projects and the proposed project may have a cumulative temporary impact on local air quality by increasing criteria pollutants during construction activities. No other cumulative effects are anticipated. SECTION SIX PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEMA is the lead Federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for the proposed City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department Building Replacement Project. It is the goal of the lead agency to expedite the preparation and review of NEPA documents and to be responsive to the needs of the community and the purpose and need of the proposed action while meeting the intent of NEPA and complying with all NEPA provisions. The City of Clute will notify the public of the availability of the draft EA through publication of a public notice in the Brazosport Fact newspaper. The draft EA will also be made available for public review at the following locations: * Clute Library - 215 North Shanks Road, Clute, Texas; and * City of Clute Parks and Recreation Department – 218 Highway 332, Clute, Texas. In addition, the draft EA will be available for public viewing on FEMA’s website (http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments/ea-region6.shtm). FEMA will conduct a 30-day public comment period commencing on the initial date of publication of the public notice. SECTION SEVEN AGENCY COORDINATION As part of the development of the EA, Federal and State resource protection agencies were contacted. Responses received to date are included in Appendix D. * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI * U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service * Texas Commission on Environmental Quality * Texas General Land Office * Texas Historical Commission * Texas Parks and Wildlife Department In accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, the applicant would be responsible for acquiring any necessary permits prior to commencing construction at the proposed project site. SECTION EIGHT CONCLUSIONS No impacts to geology, seismicity, groundwater, wetlands and other WOUS, floodplains, coastal resources, threatened or endangered species, cultural resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, hazardous materials, and public health and safety are anticipated under the Proposed Action Alternative. During the construction period, minor short-term impacts to soils, air quality, offsite surface water, noise, transportation, and air quality are anticipated. These impacts will be minimized using erosion and sediment control BMPs, limiting construction to normal business hours, using appropriate signage, and ensuring proper equipment maintenance. Minor long-term permanent impacts to biological resources consist of the removal of 0.5 acre of park open space vegetation, including grasses and approximately 10 trees. Minor long-term impacts to transportation may occur from an increase in traffic levels in the vicinity of Clute Municipal Park from increased public use of the new community center and other building and park amenities. The preliminary findings of this EA indicate that the proposed project would result in no significant environmental impacts to the human or natural environment. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed action will meet the requirements of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be required. SECTION NINE REFERENCES Brazosport Area Chamber of Commerce. 2010. http://www.brazosport.org/. Last Modified January 19, 2010. Accessed September 21, 2011. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. EnviroMapper for Envirofacts. http://www.epa.gov/ emefdata/em4ef.home. Accessed September 9, 2011. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1989. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Brazoria County, Texas and Incorporated Areas. Community Panel Number 48039C0620H. http://www.msc.fema.gov. Effective June 5, 1989. Accessed August 18, 2011. Houston Galveston Area Council. 2011. Closed Landfill Inventory. http://webgis2.h-gac.com/landfillflex/. Accessed September 9, 2011 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2010. Central Registry Query – Regulated Entity Search. http://www12.tceq.state.tx.us/crpub/ index.cfm?fuseaction=regent.RNSearch. Last modified July 26, 2010. Accessed September 9, 2011 TCEQ. 2011. Texas State Implementation Plan. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria: Current Attainment Status. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/ airquality/sip/hgb/sip-hgb. Last modified March 30,2011. Accessed August 30, 2011. Texas General Land Office (GLO). 2011. Texas Coastal Management Program Maps: Texas Coastal Zone Map. http://www.glo.state.tx.us/coastal/cmp.html. Accessed August 12, 2011. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2011. Annotated County Lists of Rare Species, Brazoria County. http://gis2.tpwd.state.tx.us/ReportServer$GIS_EPASDE_SQL/Pages/ ReportViewer.aspx?%2fReport+Project2%2fReport5&rs:Command=Render&county=Brazoria. Last modified February 28, 2011. Accessed September 2, 2011. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 1973. Report 163. Ground-Water Resources of Brazoria County, Texas. February 1973. TWDB. 2009. TWDB Groundwater Database Query, State Well Number 6561918. http://wiid.twdb.state.tx.us/wwm/wwm_welldata.asp?state_well=6561918. Last Modified January 29, 2009. Accessed September 6, 2011. TWDB. 2011a. Geologic Atlas of Texas. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/GwRD/GTA/GAT/ houston.htm. Accessed September 6 2011. TWDB. 2011b. Gulf Coast Aquifer. http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/ GroundWaterReports/GWReports/R345%20Aquifers%20of%20Texas/Majors/gulf.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2011. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009. 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Clute city, Texas. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/ main.html?_lang=en. Accessed September 21, 2011. USCB. 2010. American FactFinder. 2010 Census Demographic Profiles Data, Clute City, Texas. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/. Accessed September 21, 2011. USCB. 2011. USCB State and County Quickfacts, Brazoria County, Texas. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48039.html. Last modified June 3, 2011. Accessed September 21, 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 1997. Official Series Description. Pledger Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OSD_Docs/P/PLEDGER.html. Last modified February 1997. Accessed August 18, 2011. USDA/NRCS. 2009. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Last Modified October 26, 2009. Assessed August 18, 2011. USDA/NRCS. 2011. Farmland Protection Policy Act. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/?ss=16&navtype=SUBNAVIGATION&cid=nrcs143_008275&navid= 100170180000000&pnavid=100000000000000&position=Welcome.Html&ttype=detail&pname=Farmland%20Protection%20Policy%20Act%20|%20NRCS. Assessed August 18, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Texas Mid-Coast Refuge Complex. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/texas/texasmidcoast/#maps.html. Last Modified August 27, 2009. Accessed September 9, 2011. USFWS 2011a. National Wetland Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Last modified August 15, 2011. Accessed August 18, 2011. USFWS. 2011b. John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource System: Maps of Coastal Barrier Resources System. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html. Accessed August 15, 2011. USFWS. 2011c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species By County Report, Brazoria County. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport. action?fips=48039Last Modified September 2, 2011. Accessed September 2, 2011. USFWS. 2011d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Program. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ Flyways.html. Last modified May 20, 2011. Accessed August 15, 2011. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. USGS National Seismic Hazard Map. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/graphic2pct50.jpg. Accessed September 9, 2011. USGS. 2010. Lake Jackson, Texas Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map. 1:24,0000. Accessed August 18, 2011. USGS. 2011. Earthquake Hazards Program, Quaternary Faults Map – Interactive. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/imsintro.php. Last modified July 20, 2011. Accessed September 9, 2011. Wheeler, R.L., compiler, 1999. Fault number 924, Gulf-margin normal faults, Texas, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults. Accessed September 9, 2011. SECTION TEN LIST OF PREPARERS Document Preparers: Brian Mehok, CFM Project Manager NISTAC Houston, Texas Angela Chaisson Senior NEPA Specialist NISTAC Germantown, Maryland Government Contributors: Kevin Jaynes, CHHM Regional Environmental Officer, Region VI Federal Emergency Management Agency Denton, Texas Ashley Bechtold Historic Preservation Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency Denton, Texas Alan Hermely Environmental Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency Denton, Texas Other Key Contributors: Gary Beverly City Manager City of Clute Dana Pomerenke Director Parks & Recreation City of Clute Appendix A Figures Appendix B Preliminary Site Plan Appendix C Photograph Log Appendix D Agency Coordination Table of Contents 1-NOV-11 ii Acronyms and Abbreviations 1-NOV-11 iv Introduction 1-NOV-11 1-1 Purpose and Need 1-NOV-11 2-1 Alternatives 1-NOV-11 3-1 Affected Environment and Potential Impacts 1-NOV-11 4-15 Cumulative Impacts 1-NOV-11 5-1 Public Involvement 1-NOV-11 6-1 Agency Coordination 1-NOV-11 7-1 Conclusions 1-NOV-11 8-1 List of Preparers 1-NOV-11 10-1