EIS_Presentation_new (3)

For
The Very Fantastical Banita (Bonita) Creek Flood Control
Project
By Brandon McBride and Aaron Slevin
May 2016

Outline
 Purpose and Need
 Laws and Regulations
 Public Involvement
 Project Description
 Alternatives Description
 Impact Analysis
 Mitigation and Monitoring
Brandon McBride & Aaron Slevin
Environmental Science Division of Stephen F. Austin State University
Source: Google Images

What is an EIS?
 Environmental impact statement
 Comprehensive concise document for public review
 Complies with laws and regulations (state, local,
federal)
 Examines current environmental, social, and economic
parameters
 Analysis of impacts based on predetermined
alternatives
 Provides plans for mitigation and monitoring

Purpose and Need
 Limit the intensity, frequency, and duration of
flooding within the City of Nacogdoches, Texas.
 Demonstrate compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Source: Google Images

Laws and Regulations
 National Environmental Policy Act
 Requires any federal action, project, or policy to be held accountable
 Public Involvement
 Sequencing
 Concise, Comprehensive, Complete
 Clean Air Act
 Clean Water Act
 Executive Order 11988
 Endangered Species Act
 Noise Control Act
 National Historic Preservation Act

Public Involvement
 Public is informed through:
 Social media
 E-mail
 Television
 Newspaper
 Public hearings

Project Description
 Site consists of a 4,900 meter stretch of Banita Creek
bounded to the north by West Austin Street and to the
south by Martin Luther King Blvd.
 Further, the project area is constrained to the east and
west by a 75 meter width.

Project Description
 Soils*
 Habitat*
 Water Quality*
 Vegetation*
 Historical*
 Cultural*
 Air Quality*
 Endangered Species
 Sensitive Areas
 Demographics
 Economics
 Reaches
 Topography

Alternatives Description
 No Action Alternative – Not Feasible
 Alternative 1 – 100-year flood; channelization,
enlargement and levee installation
 Alternative 2 – 50-year flood; channelization and
enlargement
 Alternative 3 – Clean out
 Alternative 4 – Clearing and snagging

Impact Analysis
 Focus areas were Environmental, Infrastructure, and
Socioeconomics
 Each area of impact was examined for each alternative

Environmental Impacts
 Air and Climatology*
 Vegetation*
 Soil and Geology*
 Stream and Wildlife habitat*
 Wetlands*
 Solid and Hazardous waste
 Noise, light, and odor
 Endangered and Threatened species

Air and Climatology
 Diagnosis of emissions from PM10
 From removal of soil, vegetation, and infrastructure
 Examination of effects on global warming
 Albedo effect
 Percent humidity
 Assumptions made to calculate final emission rates
 Vehicle miles traveled, number of vehicles, etc.…

Air and Climatology
 Alternative 1
 Directly impacted from construction and operations
 Increase in temperature and humidity expected due
largely to removal of vegetation (50%)
 Alternative 2
 Impacts significantly less than alternative 1
 Increase in temperature and humidity expected
 Alternative 3-4
 Calculated emissions low; minimal
construction/operation; inconsequential

Impact Summary for PM10 Emissions
Alternative Total PM10 Emission, TPY Appendix Table
1 43.40 6.01-1
2 25.32 6.01-3
3 4.53 6.01-5
4 2.12 6.01-7
Factor Variable Assumption
Wind Speed U 3.31 m/s
Silt Content s 24.20%
Soil Moisture Content M 26.30%
Vegetation Moisture Content M 50.00%
Concrete Moisture Content M 5.00%
Soil Bulk Density - 1.46 g/cm3
Vegetation Density - 0.6 g/cm3
Concrete Density - 1640 kg/cm3
Mean Vehicle Speed S 10 mph
Mean Vehicle Weight W 3 tons
Total Emissions
Assumptions for Calculations

Vegetation
 Alternative-1
 Levee system has a large impact (82 meters)
 Large implications for communities that account for half
of the project area
 Short and long term impact
 Alternative-2
 No levee so less impact (14 meters)
 Short term and long term impacts much less

Vegetation
 Alternative-3
 One top bank for operation – few impacts
 Debris removal from equipment – largest impact
 Alternative-4
 Least impactful to communities
 Debris removal – largest impact

Soil and Geology
 Alternatives 1-2
 Removal of approximately 28.89 Mg/yr of soil
 Exposes parent material and undisturbed soil matrices
 Inhibits natural soil properites
 Compaction from equipment limits root formation
 Impacts are minimal
 Large scale soil removal is not a factor
 Machinery may promote soil compaction

Stream Habitat
 Loss of stream variability and dynamics
 Loss of shade and cover (pH)
 Higher turbidity profile from increased erosion
 Water quality characteristics necessary for aquatic life
may sustain impacts (DO)
 Snagging and clearing may impact water quality
parameters (DO)

Wildlife Habitat
 Alternative-1
 Loss of vegetation = loss of wildlife habitat is high
 Habitat removed will never return (forested areas)
 Alternative-2
 Short term – net loss of habitat function
 Long term – normal capacity
 Minimal disturbance
 Increased flood risk may still have long term effects

Infrastructure Predictions
 Roads*
 Buildings*
 Utilities*
 Railroads
 Trails

Linear Features Impact Summary
Feature Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3 Alternative4
Streets(meters) 1001 366 - -
Railroads(meters) 521 20 - -
Trails(meters) 1495 72 - -
WaterMains(meters) 3278 3278 - -
SewerMains(meters) 7277 7277 - -
Buildings(sq.ft.) 76989 473 - -
LinearFeaturesImpactSummary

Infrastructure Impacts
Alternative 1
• Roads: 1001 meters
• Buildings: 76,989 sq. ft.
Alternative 2
• Roads: 366 meters
• Buildings: 473 sq. ft.

Utilities
Alternatives 1 – 2
• Water Mains: 3278 meters
• Sewer Mains: 7277 meters
Feature
Total Length
(Meters)
Water Mains 3278
Sewer Mains 7277
Utilities Located Within the Project
Site Boundary

Socioeconomic Impacts
 Archeological*
 Recreation*
 Economics

Archeological
 Alternatives 1 – 2
 May impact historical
areas
 Project area is typically
categorized with a low
historical significance
 Banita Creek Nature
Preserve
 Banita Creek Hall

Recreation
 Alternatives 1 – 2
 Banita Creek Park
 Banita Creek Nature
Preserve
 Banita Creek Hall
 Coy Simms Softball
Complex

Flood Control
 Alternative-1
 Greatest success, most impact, most expensive
 Alternative-2
 Successful, high impact, best cost
 Alternative-3
 Marginal success, minimal impact, low cost
 Alternative-4
 Least successful, lowest impact, lowest cost

Mitigation and Monitoring
 Vegetation
 Air Quality
 Stream and Wildlife Habitat
 Recreation
 Archeology
 Roads and Buildings

Air Quality
 Control Measures
 New machinery = lower emission rates
 Regular maintenance and check-ups
 Maximum cap on vehicle miles traveled per day
 Storage of equipment close to the project site
 Use of a water truck to stabilize soil
 Wind fence to limit fugitive dust emissions

Habitat
 Control Measures:
 Limit operations away from undisturbed areas
 Limit the number of entry points on to the site
 Re-establishment (where applicable) of communities on
site
 Enhance downstream habitat concurrent with project
implementation

Archeology
 Control Measures:
 Conduct an archeological survey before operations
 Significant items will be removed, indexed, and stored
for protection
 Avoidance of areas such as Banita Creek Hall and Nature
Preserve

Roads and Buildings
 Only one bridge/road will be demolished at a time
 Reconstruction of roads will be established before
moving to another section
 Detour routes will be established for commuters

Wetlands
 No direct impacts
 Indirect impacts – alter hydrologic parameters
 Will be monitored annually for a period of ten years to
re-evaluate conditions

Conclusion
 Compliance with NEPA
 Determined baseline environmental conditions
 Diagnosed impacts from introduced alternatives
 Determined mitigation strategies from alternatives
analysis
 Introduced plans for monitoring and maintenance

Literature Cited
Banita Creek Preserve, Nacogdoches County, Open to the Public. (n.d.). Retrieved March 09, 2016, from http://www.texaslandconservancy.org/lands/properties-
list/east-texas/87-banita-creek-preserve-nacogdoches-county-open-to-the-public
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. S:nyder, and J.B. Stribling. (1999). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
City of Nacogdoches Emergency Management Staff, Nacogdoches Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (2004). City of Nacogdoches Hazard Mitigation Action
Plan. Ordinance No. 1338-10-03. Retrieved from http://www.ci.nacogdoches.tx.us/documentcenter/view/145
City of Nacogdoches. (n.d.). History of Nacogdoches. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://www.ci.nacogdoches.tx.us/index.aspx?NID=601
EPA (2015). Summary of the Clean Air Act. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
EPA (2015). Summary of the Clean Water Act. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
EPA (2015). Summary of the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered-species-act
EPA (2015). Summary of the Noise Control Act. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-noise-control-act
EPA, (2015). What is the National Environmental Policy Act?. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act
EPA. (1992). NIBCO, INC., NACOGDOCHES DIV.: Environmental Protection Agency ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL ACCELERATED
DECISION AND MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from https://books.google.com/books?id=quz-xe7X1psC
EPA. (1996). Memorandum of Agreement Between the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/tx_moa1.pdf
EPA. (2015). The 2011 National Emissions Inventory. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html
FEMA (2015). Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.fema.gov/executive-order-11988-floodplain-management
FEMA (2015). National Historic Preservation Act. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://www.fema.gov/national-historic-preservation-act-1966-amended-2000
Gallant, Brian, J. (2008). The Facility Manager’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Kägi, W. (2000). Economics of climate change: The contribution of forestry projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nacogdoches Economic Development Corporation. (n.d.). Labor Force. Retrieved March 06, 2016, from http://www.nedco.org/community-profile/labor-force
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2010). Climate Data Online: Normals Hourly Location Details. Retrieved from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/findstation
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). (2003). Concrete in Practice: What, Why & How?. Retrieved from
http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/cips/36p.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n. d.). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
SFA/NWS Weather Station. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://forestry.sfasu.edu/weather/
Southern Regional Climate Center. (2010). Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.srcc.lsu.edu/station_search.html?sid=168440
TCEQ. (2013). Three-year ambient air quality summary. Retrieved from http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/yearly_summary.pl
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2010). Chapter 307 - Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Retrieved from
https://d2l.sfasu.edu/d2l/le/content/113851/viewContent/1435529/View
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (2015). Surface Water Quality Data: Forms for Collecting and Managing Surface Water Quality Data Discharge.
Retrieved from https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/monitoring/swqm_forms-n-quality.html/#field
Texas Natural Resources Information System. (n.d.). Retrieved March 08, 2016, from https://tnris.org/
Texas Parks & Wildlife. (1995). Wildlife Habitat Appraisal Procedure (WHAP).PWD RP-W7000-0145. Retrieved from
https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0145.pdf
Texas Parks & Wildlife. (2016). Annotated County List of Rare Species: Nacogdoches County. Retrieved from http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/
United States Census Bureau. (2014). Population Estimates, July 1, 2014, (V2014). Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48347.html
United States Fish & Wildlife Service: National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. (2016). Retrieved March 08, 2016, from
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
Williams, H. M., Miller, A. J., McNamee, R.S., and Klimas, C.V. (2010). A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to the Functional
Assessment of Forested Wetlands in Alluvial Valleys of East Texas. ERDC/EL TR-10-17, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.

Questions?

EIS_Presentation_new (3)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (12)

Similaire à EIS_Presentation_new (3)

Similaire à EIS_Presentation_new (3) (20)

EIS_Presentation_new (3)