Draft Environmental Assessment

GRUENE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 
FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT
NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS

Prepared for:
FEMA Region VI
Federal Regional Center
800 North Loop 288
Denton, TX 76209

TurnerCollie & Braden INC.
Environmental Planning / September 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION		                               PAGE

1.0	INTRODUCTION 	                        1
1.1	Project Authority	                1
1.2	Project Location	                1
2.0	PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROJECT 	1
3.0	ALTERNATIVES	                        4
3.1	No Action 	                        4
3.2	Proposed Action	                        4
4.0	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS	4
4.1	Geology, Seismicity and Soils	        4
4.2	Water Resources	                        5
4.2.1	Surface Water	                        5
4.2.2	Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands	6
4.2.3	Floodplains	                        7
4.2.4	Groundwater	                        7
4.3	Biological Resources	                8
4.3.1	Flora and Fauna	                        8
4.3.2	Threatened and Endangered Species	9
4.4	Air Quality	                        10
4.5	Transportation	                        10
4.6	Noise	                                10
4.7	Cultural Resources	                11
4.8	Socioeconomic	                        11
4.9	Environmental Justice	                11
4.10	Safety	                                12
4.11	Hazardous Materials	                12
5.0	PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT	                13
6.0	AGENCY COORDINATION	                13
7.0	CONCLUSION	                        14
8.0	REFERENCES	                        15
9.0	LIST OF PREPARERS	                16

APPENDICES
Site Photographs	Appendix A
Agency Correspondence	Appendix B 
Public Notice		Appendix C
Floodplain Planning Process	Appendix D

LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAA	Clean Air Act
CERCLA	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act
CO 	carbon monoxide 
CWA	Clean Water Act
dB 	decibels 
EA 	Environmental Assessment 
EO 	Executive Order 
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency 
ESA 	Endangered Species Act 
FEMA 	Federal Emergency Management Agency 
FHBM	Flood Hazard Boundary Map
FHWA	Federal Highway Administration
FIRM	Flood Insurance Rate Map
FPPA	Farmland Protection Policy Act
gpm	gallons per minute
mg/l	milligrams per liter
msl 	mean sea level 
NAAQS 	National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
NEPA 	National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
NFIP	National Flood Insurance Program
NGVD	National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA 	National Historic Preservation Act 
NO2	nitrogen dioxide
NRCS	Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP 	National Register of Historic Places 
NWI	National Wetland Inventory
O3	ozone 
OSHA 	Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
Pb 	lead 
PM10	particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns 
RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SO2	sulfur dioxide 
TCEQ	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TxDOT	Texas Department of Transportation
THC	Texas Historical Commission
USACE	U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
USGS	U.S. Geologic Survey
USFWS 	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Authority

On July 4, 2002, a major disaster was declared due to flooding in central Texas 
that ultimately 
included 39 counties (FEMA-1425-DR-TX).  As a result of damage sustained during 
the flooding, 
New Braunfels Utilities has applied for funding under the Public Assistance 
Program administered 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  In accordance with the 
Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 93-288, as amended, FEMA is 
required to review 
the environmental effects of the proposed action prior to making a funding 
decision.  In accordance 
with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, FEMA has prepared this 
environmental 
assessment to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 
1500-1508.  The 
purpose of this environmental assessment is to analyze and assess the potential 
environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.

1.2 Project Location

The proposed project is located at the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant at 
1493 Gruene 
Road within the City of New Braunfels, Texas (Figure 1 and Figure 2).  New 
Braunfels is located 
in southeastern Comal County approximately 25 miles northeast of San Antonio.  
The existing 
facility on the site is a 1.1 million gallon a day wastewater treatment plant 
owned by New 
Braunfels Utilities, a publicly owned utility.  The project site is five acres 
in size and located 
approximately 500 feet west of the Guadalupe River.  The Guadalupe River flows 
from the Texas 
Hill Country to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of approximately 250 miles (Texas 
Almanac 1999). 

The existing wastewater treatment plant was constructed in 1978 and expanded in 
1990.  Elevations 
at the site range from 621 feet to 628 feet.  The site is located within the 
city limits of New 
Braunfels.  The surrounding area is suburban to semi-rural.  Land use to the 
west and southwest of 
the facility is vacant (abandoned quarry).  Land use to the east is a private 
business (tube/raft 
rentals).  A subdivision is located to the southeast.  

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the proposed project is to protect the Gruene Road Wastewater 
Treatment Plant 
facility from the floodwaters of the Guadalupe River.  Construction of a wall to 
protect the facility 
from flooding would reduce the interruption of wastewater treatment operations 
and minimize the 
damage from flood events. 

The Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant is located partially within the 100-
year flood zone 
as designated by the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).  In July of 2002, 
floodwaters 
covered most of the five acre site and rose to a height of about five feet 
within the Blower Room 
building located on the northern corner of the site closest to the river (New 
Braunfels Utilities 
2003).  As a result, operations were interrupted for approximately 12 days.  
During an earlier 
flood in October 1998, the entire five-acre site was flooded and floodwaters 
rose to a height of 
about nine feet in the Blower Room building (New Braunfels Utilities 2003).  The 
proposed project 
is needed to maintain the operation of the wastewater treatment plant during 
floods and to prevent 
health risks and damages to the facility as a result of floodwaters.  

FIGURE 1
Location Map  site is within the City of New Braunfels, approximately 25 miles 
northeast of San 
Antonio, Texas.

FIGURE 2
Site Map  Aerial Photo - site is an existing wastewater treatment plant, 
approximately 500 feet 
from the Guadalupe River.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 No Action 

The No Action alternative would involve not constructing a flood protection wall 
or any other 
structure around the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Consequently, 
wastewater 
treatment operations would be subject to interruption and the facility subject 
to damage during 
flood events.

3.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action is construction of a flood protection wall to protect the 
Gruene Road 
Wastewater Treatment Plant from flood damage.  The project would involve 
construction of a 
concrete and earthen structure around the perimeter of the five-acre site.  The 
specific design and 
dimensions of the wall are not yet known but the maximum height is expected to 
be no more that 
ten feet and the minimum height would be two to four feet.  The project will 
also include a 
watertight gate for vehicular access and outlet pipes and/or pumps for draining 
the site.  No other 
"build" alternatives were considered.

The construction would occur along the perimeter of the existing five-acre site.  
The work would 
consist of site preparation (minor grading) and construction of the wall.  Fill 
for the earthen portion 
of the wall would come from a clean, uncontaminated source.  Existing buildings 
would not be 
affected and additional property would not be needed.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS

4.1 Geology, Seismicity and Soils

The Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant is located along the Guadalupe River 
floodplain in 
southeastern Comal County.  The general area consists of rolling hills and is 
suburban to semi-
rural in nature.  The proposed site is located inside the city limits of New 
Braunfels.  

The project site is located along the Balcones Escarpment, the physiographic 
boundary separating 
the Edwards Plateau and Texas Hill Country to the west and the Blackland Prairie 
to the east.  The 
elevations in the county vary from 600 to 1,600 feet (USDA 1982).  The elevation 
on the project 
site is approximately 622 feet.  Average annual precipitation in Comal County is 
about 33 inches.  
The larger amounts of rainfall in the county tend to occur between late spring 
and early fall (USDA 
1982).          

The limestone and other carbonate rocks of the Trinity, Fredericksburg and 
Washita groups 
dominate the geology in the project area.  These stratigraphic units are of 
varying hardness and are 
generally more exposed at the surface to the west of the project area.  Alluvial 
sediment overlies 
the bedrock on the project site.

According to the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, there is currently a 
low probability of 
seismic activity within the project area (USGS 2002).  Since the proposed 
project is located in an 
area of low earthquake hazard potential and does not involve constructing any 
buildings, Executive 
Order 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New 
Building 
Construction, does not apply.
    
The Soil Survey of Comal and Hays Counties indicates that the project site 
occurs within the 
Lewisville-Gruene-Crum soil association.  In general, these soils consist of 
deep to very shallow 
loamy clayey and gravelly sediments on stream terraces.  The mapped soil on the 
project site is the 
Oakalla soil, frequently flooded.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies to evaluate the 
adverse effects of 
their activities on prime and unique farmland as well as farmland of statewide 
and local 
importance.  The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible 
for protecting 
significant agricultural lands from irreversible conversions that result in the 
loss of an essential food 
or environmental resource.  Prime farmland is characterized as land with the 
best physical and 
chemical characteristics for the production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and 
oilseed crops.  This land 
is either used for food or fiber crops or is available for those crops, but is 
not urban, built-up land, or 
water areas.  The Oakalla soil, frequently flooded, is not classified as a prime 
farmland soil.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no impacts on 
the soils or 
geology of the area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Construction of a new flood 
protection wall at 
the site would cause some disturbance of geology and soils as part of the site 
preparation work.  
Since the site is relatively flat, the grading needed at the site would be 
minor.  Exposed soils could 
be subject to erosion, therefore, silt fence and/or other storm water quality 
best management 
practices would be utilized during construction (see Section 4.2).  In general, 
effects to geology 
and soils would be minor and temporary in nature.  The proposed project would 
not affect the 
adjacent, abandoned quarry.  Because the Oakalla soil, frequently flooded, is 
not classified as a 
prime or unique farmland soil, the Farmland Protection Policy Act is not 
applicable.  An AD-1006 
(Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) form has been completed for the proposed 
project and is 
included in Appendix B.
 
4.2 Water Resources

4.2.1 Surface Water

There are no rivers, creeks or other defined drainages on the project site.  
Storm water leaves the 
site as sheet flow and drains to the Guadalupe River approximately 500 feet 
away.  This section of 
the Guadalupe River is listed as Stream Segment 1812 of the Guadalupe River 
Basin in the Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) State of Texas Water Quality 
Inventory.  The 
designated water uses of this segment are contact recreation, exceptional 
aquatic life, public water 
supply and aquifer protection.  

The TCEQ is required, under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, to identify 
water bodies for 
which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality 
standards.  The TCEQ 
also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will 
be initiated for 
priority impaired waters.  Based on the TCEQ's 2002 Draft Clean Water Act 
Section 303 (d) list, 
Stream Segment 1812 of the Guadalupe River Basin is not listed as a threatened 
or impaired 
waterway segment.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no impacts on 
the surface water 
quality of the area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Potential impacts to surface 
waters associated 
with the construction of the flood protection wall include the potential for 
minor erosion and 
sedimentation during construction.  Some vegetation clearing and minor grading 
would be needed 
as part of the site preparation work.  During this period, storm water runoff 
could carry sediment 
offsite into receiving waters.  A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be 
prepared and 
erosion and sedimentation control measures would be implemented to minimize any 
detrimental 
effects to water quality during construction.   

Because the project may disturb more than one acre, it may require authorization 
under the Texas 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Construction General Permit.  In 
order for a 
project to be authorized under the TPDES General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution 
Prevention 
Plan would have to be prepared.  The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would 
include 
temporary erosion control measures to minimize impacts to water quality during 
construction.  
These control measures may include the use of silt fencing, rock berms, hay 
bales or other suitable 
means of containment.  Temporary erosion control measures (where appropriate) 
would be 
maintained during construction.  Vegetation would be cleared only as needed.  
Upon completion of 
the project, disturbed areas would be re-vegetated.

Any adverse effects to water quality associated with the construction of the 
flood protection wall 
would be short term and be minimized by the mitigation measures described above.  
No long-term 
effects to water quality are expected as a result of the proposed project.     

4.2.2 Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or 
fill material 
into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act.  
Wetlands are identified as those areas that are inundated or saturated by 
surface or ground water at 
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 
circumstances do support a 
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 
conditions.  In addition, 
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to take 
actions to 
minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and 
enhance the natural 
and beneficial values of wetlands on federal property.  A site visit was 
performed to identify any 
potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on or adjacent to the project 
site. 

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
wetlands or other 
waters of the U.S. and would not require a Section 404 permit. 

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Prior to visiting the project 
site, a review of the 
U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
National Wetland 
Inventory map, and an aerial photo of the site was performed to identify the 
potential for wetlands 
and/or other waters of the U.S.  This review did not find any potential areas 
containing waters of 
the U.S. on the site.  A site visit conducted on May 5, 2003 confirmed there are 
no waters of the 
U.S. subject to Section 404 permitting on the project site.  Waters of the U.S. 
adjacent to the 
property include the abandoned quarry to the southwest of the site and the 
Guadalupe River.  These 
adjacent areas would not be affected by the proposed project.  The proposed 
project would not 
impact waters of the U.S. and would not require a Section 404 permit.  There are 
no navigable 
waters in the area; therefore, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 
does not apply.

4.2.3 Floodplains 

Floodplains generally refer to 100-year floodplains as set by FEMA and are shown 
on Flood 
Insurance Rate Maps or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for all communities that are 
members of the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  The City of New Braunfels and Comal 
County are 
participants in the NFIP. 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to avoid 
or minimize 
development in the floodplain except when there are no practicable alternatives.  
According to the 
NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Map for New Braunfels (Community-Panel Number 485493-
0006-C), 
the project site is located within the 100-year floodplain.

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not result in 
impacts to the 100-year 
floodplain.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The construction of the flood 
protection wall 
would take place partially within the designated 100-year floodplain.  To comply 
with Executive 
Order 11988, Floodplain Management, FEMA is required to follow the procedure 
outlined in 44 
CFR Part 9 to assure that alternatives to the proposed action have been 
considered.  This process, 
also known as the "Eight Step Planning Process," has been applied to the 
proposed action and is 
described in Appendix D.  For the purposes of this study, there are no 
practicable alternatives to 
the proposed action.  

No adverse effects to the floodplain are expected as a result of the 
construction of the flood 
protection wall.  Coordination with the City of New Braunfels floodplain 
administrator has been 
performed (see letter in Appendix B).  The City of New Braunfels floodplain 
administrator had no 
objection to the proposed action.  The final design of the proposed flood 
protection wall would 
undergo review for floodplain and drainage issues through the City of New 
Braunfels development 
review process.

4.2.4 Groundwater

The primary source of groundwater in the area is the Edwards Aquifer.  The 
Edwards Aquifer is a 
porous, limestone aquifer that extends in an arc from north of Austin to west of 
San Antonio.  The 
aquifer is characterized by high permeability and susceptibility to surface 
water quality conditions.  
Where certain projects occur on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer, they 
are required to 
comply with the TCEQ's Edwards Aquifer Rules (30 TAC Chapter 213).  The recharge 
zone is 
defined as that portion of the aquifer where the water bearing units are exposed 
at the surface and 
where surface water typically enters the aquifer. 

The project site lies on a portion of the Edwards Aquifer designated as the 
transition zone by the 
TCEQ.  The transition zone is that portion of the aquifer where the water 
bearing units of the 
aquifer are not exposed at the surface and is located generally down-gradient 
from the recharge 
zone but where wells at the surface can penetrate the aquifer.    

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
groundwater.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The construction of the flood 
protection wall 
would not have any substantial effect on the Edwards Aquifer in the area.  
Because the project 
occurs on the transition zone of the Edwards Aquifer, compliance with the TCEQ's 
Edwards 
Aquifer rules is not required.

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3.1 Flora and Fauna

The project area is located on the extreme eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau 
vegetative region of 
Texas, as originally described by Gould (1975) and updated by Hatch et al. 
(1990).  The eastern 
edge of the Edwards Plateau is identified by the Balcones Escarpment that 
delineates the east and 
south boundaries of what is commonly referred to as the Texas Hill Country.  

The project site occurs within the Edwards Plateau ecoregion and Live Oak-Ashe 
Juniper Parks 
subregion as described by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in The 
Vegetation Types of 
Texas.  Commonly associated species of this region include live oak (Quercus 
virginiana), Ashe 
juniper (Juniperus ashei), shin oak (Quercus sinuata), cedar elm (Ulmus 
crassifolia), evergreen 
sumac (Rhus virens), escarpment cherry (Prunus serotina), saw greenbriar (Smilax 
bona-nox), 
twistleaf yucca (Yucca rupicola), Texas pricklypear, little bluestem, Texas 
grama, woodsorrel, and 
netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata).  

Typical fauna in this portion of the Edwards Plateau includes white-tailed deer 
(Odocoileus 
virginianus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), 
nine-banded 
armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), various species of 
bats, and a wide 
variety of songbirds.  
 
The vegetation on the project site consists primarily of regularly mowed Bermuda 
grass.  Tree 
species adjacent to the site include netleaf hackberry, live oak, cedar elm and 
domesticated pecan 
(Carya sp.).  Photos showing vegetation on the project site are included in 
Appendix A.  
 
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was enacted to protect fish and wildlife 
when federal 
actions result in control or modification of a natural stream or body of water.  
No streams or other 
water bodies are located on the project site, therefore, the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act is 
not applicable to the proposed action. 
 
Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
flora or fauna in 
the project area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The construction of a flood 
protection wall 
would result in minimal clearing of vegetation.  Because of the suburban nature 
of the project area, 
affects to wildlife and habitat would be minimal.  Clearing of vegetation would 
occur only on the 
perimeter of the five-acre site.  In general, the effects to plants and animals 
are expected to be 
minimal. 

4.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

The USFWS lists six species in Comal County as being endangered.  These species 
are the Black-
capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica 
chrysoparia), fountain darter 
(Etheostoma fonticola), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), 
Comal Springs dryopid 
beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), and Peck's cave amphipod 
(Stygobromus(=Stygonectes) pecki).  In 
addition to these species, the USFWS lists the least tern (Sterna antillarum), 
whooping crane (Grus 
americana), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and piping plover (Charadrius 
melodus) as 
threatened or endangered in many or all counties in Texas.  

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provides for the protection of all 
listed threatened and 
endangered species from take defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct."  Harm is further 
defined by USFWS 
to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death 
or injury to listed 
species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering.  
Harass is defined by USFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to 
listed species to such 
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, 
but are not limited to, 
breeding, feeding or sheltering.

Other than the aquatic species, the black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked 
warbler are the only non-
transient species federally-listed in Comal County.  The black-capped vireo's 
breeding habitat 
consists of shrub or savannah vegetation with dense growths in the shrub layer 
from the ground to 
approximately six feet in height.  The golden-cheeked warbler inhabits woodlands 
containing Ashe 
juniper in combination with various deciduous species, including oaks, cedar 
elm, and hackberry.  
The vegetative community on and adjacent to, the project site is not 
characteristic of either of these 
habitats.
  
Table 1
Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Comal County
Common Name                    Status        Comments
Whooping Crane                 Endangered    Migratory/Transient species
Least Tern                     Endangered    Migratory/Transient species
Bald Eagle                     Threatened    Migratory/Transient species
Piping Plover                  Threatened    Migratory/Transient species
Golden-cheeked Warbler         Endangered    -
Black-capped Vireo             Endangered    -
Fountain Darter                Endangered    San Marcos and Comal rivers
Comal Springs Riffle Beetle    Endangered    San Marcos and Comal springs
Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle   Endangered    Aquatic species
Peck's Cave Amphipod           Endangered    Aquifer-dwelling species

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
threatened or 
endangered species.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The project site does not 
contain habitat for any 
of the listed species described above.  The USFWS was contacted by letter 
regarding the potential 
for endangered species to be impacted by the proposed project.  According to the 
USFWS, the 
project site does not contain habitat for any of the listed species described 
above; therefore; the 
construction of the flood protection wall would not affect any threatened or 
endangered species or 
their habitat (letter attached in Appendix B).

4.4 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act requires that states adopt ambient air quality standards.  The 
standards have 
been established in order to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts 
of pollutants.  The 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air 
Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants.  These pollutants include sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), 
particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), 
carbon monoxide 
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead.  The EPA has designated 
specific areas as 
NAAQS attainment or non-attainment areas.  Non-attainment areas are any areas 
that do not meet 
(or that contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) 
the quality standard 
for a pollutant.  Attainment areas are any areas that meet ambient air quality 
standards.  According 
to the TCEQ, Comal County is currently designated as "in-attainment" for these 
standards.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
air quality.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Pollutant emissions from 
construction equipment 
may result in minor effects to air quality in the area immediately surrounding 
the construction 
activity.  Vehicular exhaust emissions would be produced by the operation of 
diesel engines and 
other construction equipment.  These effects would be localized and of short 
duration.  The 
contractor would be required to keep all equipment in good working order to 
minimize air 
pollution. 

4.5 Transportation

The project site is located along Gruene Road approximately two and a half miles 
north of the 
central business district of New Braunfels.  Gruene Road is a two-lane, city-
maintained roadway 
and is the main road between downtown New Braunfels and the community of Gruene.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
transportation in 
the area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The proposed action is not 
expected to have an 
affect on transportation along Gruene Road or other local roadways. 
   
4.6 Noise

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound.  The closest noise receptor is a 
residence 
approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site.  Noise levels within and 
adjacent to the project 
area would increase during the proposed construction activities as a result of 
construction 
equipment.  The noise levels generated would be limited to workday daylight 
hours for the 
duration of the work.  There are no local noise ordinances that would apply to 
the proposed 
project.

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not result in 
impacts to noise 
receptors in the area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The proposed action would 
result in a slight 
increase in noise during the construction of the facility.  The increase in 
noise is expected to be 
minor and short term.

4.7 Cultural Resources

A search of the Texas Historic Sites Atlas found no listings of National 
Register properties on or 
adjacent to the project site.  The project site has no structures on it.  No 
historical markers were 
noted in the area during the site visit.  Coordination with Texas Historical 
Commission has been 
initiated to provide information regarding potential archeological properties 
and National Register 
eligibility.

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on 
cultural resources 
in the area.

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  The Texas Historical 
Commission was contacted 
by letter regarding the potential for archeological or historic resources to be 
impacted by the 
proposed project.  According to the Texas Historical Commission, construction of 
the flood 
protection wall at the proposed location would not affect any known 
archeological or historic 
resources in the area (letter attached in Appendix B).  If artifacts or other 
potential historic 
materials are discovered during construction, work will be suspended and FEMA 
and the State 
Historic Preservation Officer will be contracted. 

4.8 Socioeconomic

The City of New Braunfels, population 38,400, is the county seat of Comal County 
(New 
Braunfels Chamber of Commerce 2003).  According to the 2000 census, Comal County 
has a 
population of 78,021 and a per capita income of $19,393 (U.S. Census Bureau 
2000).  The 
primary industries in Comal County are manufacturing, tourism and 
government/services (Texas 
Almanac 1999). 
 
Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not have an affect 
on the 
socioeconomic conditions of either the City of New Braunfels or Comal County.    

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Construction of a flood 
protection wall around 
the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant would facilitate and/or support 
economic growth by 
providing more reliable wastewater treatment facility.  In addition, the 
construction of the new 
facility would be expected to create new jobs in the short term.    

4.9 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, entitled "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 
programs on minority and low-income populations.  This Executive Order also 
tasks federal 
agencies with ensuring that public notifications regarding environmental issues 
are concise, 
understandable, and readily accessible.  Socioeconomic and demographic data were 
studied to 
determine if a disproportionate number of minority or low-income persons have 
the potential to be 
adversely affected by the proposed project.

The 2000 Census lists 89.1% Comal County's residents as white; of these, 74.6 % 
were white 
persons not of Hispanic/Latino origin.  Residents of Hispanic/Latino origin 
comprised 22.6 % of the 
county's population.  African Americans, American Indian, Alaska Native persons, 
and Asian 
persons comprised 3% of the total population in this county.  Median household 
income was $33,448 
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000).  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not have 
disproportionate impacts on 
minority or low-income populations in the City of New Braunfels or in Comal 
County.    

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Construction of the flood 
protection wall would 
not involve any relocations or have an adverse or disproportionate impact on 
minority or low-
income populations.  The benefits of a flood protection wall are expected to be 
proportional to all 
residents in the area.

4.10 Safety

Safety and security issues that were considered in this environmental assessment 
include the health 
and safety of area residents, the public at-large, and the protection of 
personnel involved in 
activities related to the implementation of the proposed project. 
 
Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not affect the 
health and safety of 
residents in the area.    

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Construction of the flood 
protection wall would 
allow New Braunfels Utilities continue operation of the Gruene Road Wastewater 
Treatment Plant 
even during periods of high water that would otherwise inundate the facility.  
In addition, the 
harmful effects of contaminated floodwaters would be averted by protecting the 
facility during 
periods of high water.  The effects to the health and safety of residents in the 
area are expected to 
be positive.   

4.11 Hazardous Materials

Hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), are 
defined as "a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its 
quantity, 
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (1) 
cause, or significantly 
contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible 
or incapacitating 
reversible illness or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to 
human health or the 
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or 
otherwise managed."  
Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated in Texas by a combination of 
federal laws and state 
laws.  Federal regulations governing the assessment and disposal of hazardous 
wastes include 
RCRA, the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Solid Waste Act (SWA), and 
Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Visual observation of the project area did not reveal obvious existing or 
potential hazardous 
materials, substances, or conditions.  No drums or other sources of potential 
hazardous materials 
were observed in the project area.  No indications of pipelines crossing the 
project area were noted 
in the field or on the USGS topographic map reviewed for this project.    

Additionally, a review of regulatory environmental databases was conducted via 
the Internet from 
federal and state agencies.  The following is a list of the federal and state 
databases reviewed for 
this project: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Priorities List 
(NPL), EPA 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information 
System 
(CERCLIS) List, EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System 
(RCRIS) List, 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Superfund Registry, TCEQ 
Leaking 
Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST) List, and TCEQ Petroleum Storage Tank (PST) List.  
The 
databases were searched by zip code and by the municipality of New Braunfels, 
Texas.  No 
facilities or properties in the project area were listed on the databases 
reviewed.        

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not disturb any 
hazardous materials 
or create any potential hazard to human health.    

Alternative B  Construct Flood Protection Wall:  Construction of the flood 
protection wall would 
not disturb any hazardous materials or create any potential hazard to human 
health.  If hazardous 
constituents are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the 
proposed construction 
operations, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation and 
management of the 
contamination would be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state, 
and local regulations.  
The contractor would take appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control 
the spill of 
hazardous materials in the construction staging area.

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVMENT

The public would be invited to comment on the proposed action.  A legal notice 
would be posted in 
a local newspaper, The Herald-Zeitung, and this Draft Environmental Assessment 
will be made 
available for review for a period of 30 days.

6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS

As part of the development of this Environmental Assessment, state and federal 
resource protection 
agencies were contacted.  A TCEQ TPDES permit may be needed, otherwise, it is 
anticipated that 
no permits or approvals would be needed from any other regulatory agencies.  The 
following 
agencies have been contacted and asked to comment on the proposed project:

- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
- Texas Historical Commission
- Floodplain Administrator, Comal County
- Floodplain Administrator, City of New Braunfels

7.0 CONCLUSION

The findings of this Environmental Assessment conclude that the proposed 
construction of a flood 
protection wall around the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant would result 
in no significant 
environmental impacts to the human or natural environment; therefore, the 
proposed action meets 
the requirements of a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) under NEPA and 
the preparation 
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be required. 

8.0 REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Hazard Boundary Map.  June 17, 
1986.  
City of New Braunfels, Texas, Comal and Guadalupe Counties.  National Flood 
Insurance 
Program.  Panel Number 485493-0006-D.

New Braunfels Chamber of Commerce.  Website: www.nbccham.org.  Accessed on June 
10, 
2003.

New Braunfels Utilities.  Personal communication with Mr. Roger Biggers, May 5, 
2003.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.  1996.  The State of Texas Water 
Quality Inventory, 
1996.  Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program.  V. 3.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.  2002.  Draft 2002 303(d) List.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1999. Annotated County Lists of Rare 
Species  Travis and 
Williamson Counties, July 20, 1999.

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).  1979.  Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, 
and Hueco 
Springs.  Report No. 234, 85 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.  Soil Survey of 
Comal and Hays 
Counties, Texas.  

U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map, 7.5-minute series, New Braunfels East, 
Texas.  1964, 
photorevised 1983.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1996.  San Marcos & Comal Springs & Associated 
Aquatic 
Ecosystems (Revised) Recovery Plan.  Albuquerque, New Mexico. 121 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1999. County by County List of Federally Listed 
Threatened and 
Endangered Species of Texas, June 30, 1999.

U.S. Geological Survey.  2002. Earthquake Hazards Program.  National Hazards 
Seismic Maps.
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/graphics/usmap.gif   Site visited on June 11, 
2003.

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Project Manager and Principal Investigator:

Carlos Swonke
Sr. Project Manager
Turner Collie & Braden Inc.
Austin, Texas

Appendices 

APPENDIX A
Site Photos
[photos not available in PDF format]

APPENDIX B
Agency Correspondence
[letters not available in PDF format]

APPENDIX C
Public Notice 

Federal Emergency Management Agency
PUBLIC NOTICE

Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment
for the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection Project
New Braunfels, Texas
FEMA-DR-1425-TX.

New Braunfels Utilities, a publicly-owned utility, has applied to the Federal 
Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) for assistance with the construction of a flood barrier 
wall 
to protect the Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant from periodic flooding.  
In 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the CEQ 
regulations 
implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the National Historic Preservation 
Act, 
and the implementing regulations of FEMA (44 CFR Part 9 and 10), an 
Environmental 
Assessment (EA) is being prepared to assess the potential impacts of the 
proposed 
action on the human and natural environment.  

The proposed action is located in the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain.  
Because of 
the project's location in the floodplain and in accordance with Executive Order 
11988, an 
evaluation was performed to identify other practicable alternatives outside the 
floodplain.  
No other practicable alternatives to construction of the project in the 
floodplain were 
identified.

The EA evaluates alternatives that provide for compliance with applicable 
environmental 
laws.  The alternatives to be evaluated include (1) No Action; (2) The Proposed 
Action, 
the construction of a flood protection wall around the wastewater treatment 
plant site.
 
The draft Environmental Assessment is available for review between October 15th 
and 
November 13, 2003, at the New Braunfels Public Library located at 700 East 
Common 
Street and at the offices of New Braunfels Utilities located at 263 East Main 
Plaza, New 
Braunfels, Texas, during normal business hours.  The draft Environmental 
Assessment 
is also available for review online at the FEMA website 
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.

Written comments regarding this proposed project should be mailed to Carlos 
Swonke, 
Turner Collie & Braden Inc., 400 West 15th Street, Suite 500, Austin, TX 78701.  
Comments 
should be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2003.

APPENDIX D
Floodplain Planning Process

Floodplain Planning Process for the Proposed Gruene Road Wastewater 
Treatment Plant Flood Mitigation Project -
Summary Report

The purpose of this discussion is to document the decision-making process used 
to comply with 
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, 
Protection of 
Wetlands.  Procedures to comply with these Executive Orders are outlined in 44 
CFR Part 9.

___________________________

Eight Step Planning Process
(44 CFR 9.6)
 
Step 1.  Determine whether the proposed action is located in a wetland and/or 
the 100-
year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions); and whether it has 
the potential 
to affect or be affected by a floodplain or wetland.

The project site is within a 100-year floodplain.  According to the National 
Flood Insurance 
Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of New Braunfels (Community-
Panel Number 
485493-0006-C), the project site is located primarily within an area designated 
as Zone B and 
partially within Zone A10.  A figure showing the project location is attached.  
Zone B designates 
areas between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood or areas within the 
100-year floodplain 
subject to inundation with average depths less than one foot.  Zone A10 
designates areas within the 
100-year floodplain.  The project site is not located in, nor will the project 
affect, any wetlands.

Step 2.  Notify the public at the earliest possible time of the intent to carry 
out an action 
in a floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected and interested public in 
the decision-
making process.

The public will be notified and will be given a chance to comment on the project 
through the public 
notice process for the environmental assessment.  A notice will be posted in a 
local newspaper 
announcing the availability of the environmental assessment and the location of 
the project within 
the 100-year floodplain.  The environmental assessment will be made available at 
a local library 
and at the offices of New Braunfels Utilities.  Public comment on the project 
will be accepted for 
30 days after the notice.
  
Step 3.  Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed 
action in a 
floodplain or wetland (including alternative sites, actions and the ''no 
action'' option).  
If a practicable alternative exists outside the floodplain or wetland FEMA must 
locate the 
action at the alternative site.

Because the intent of the project is protection of the existing facility, other 
locations for the 
proposed action outside the floodplain are not practical and were not evaluated.  
The No Action 
alternative would involve not constructing a flood protection wall or any other 
structure around the 
Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Consequently, wastewater treatment 
operations would 
be subject to interruption and the facility subject to damage during flood 
events.  The No Action 
alternative would not meet the project purpose of protecting the existing 
facility from flood 
damage.

Step 4.  Identify the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the 
occupancy or 
modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential direct and indirect 
support of 
floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action.

The potential effects of the proposed action have been evaluated in the 
environmental 
assessment.  No significant effects to the human or natural environment are 
expected, nor are 
any adverse effects to floodplain expected.  Preliminary review by the City of 
New Braunfels 
floodplain administrator resulted in no objection to the proposed action. 

Step 5.  Minimize the potential adverse impacts and support to or within 
floodplains and 
wetlands to be identified under Step 4, restore and preserve the natural and 
beneficial 
values served by floodplains, and preserve and enhance the natural and 
beneficial values 
served by wetlands.

As discussed in Step 4, no adverse impacts to the floodplain are expected and no 
wetlands are 
present in the project area.

Step 6.  Reevaluate the proposed action to determine first, if it is still 
practicable in light 
of its exposure to flood hazards, the extent to which it will aggravate the 
hazards to 
others, and its potential to disrupt floodplain and wetland values and second, 
if 
alternatives preliminarily rejected at Step 3 are practicable in light of the 
information 
gained in Steps 4 and 5.  FEMA shall not act in a floodplain or wetland unless 
it is the 
only practicable location.

Based on the reevaluation, the proposed action is still practicable based on the 
minimal exposure to 
flood hazards and the potential disruption to the floodplain.

Step 7.  Prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of 
any final 
decision that the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative. 

As part of the public notice for the Draft Environmental Assessment, a statement 
will be included 
to address the decision to locate the project in the floodplain.  The statement 
will appear, as 
follows, in the public notice to be advertised in the New Braunfels Herald-
Zeitung.

The proposed action is located in the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain.  
Because of 
the project's location in the floodplain and in accordance with Executive Order 
11988, an 
evaluation was performed to identify other practicable alternatives outside the 
floodplain.  
No other practicable alternatives to construction of the project in the 
floodplain were 
identified.

Step 8.  Review the implementation and post-implementation phases of the 
proposed 
action to ensure that the requirements are fully implemented.

The commitment to implement the requirements of this process will be 
incorporated into the 
Finding of No Significant Impact of the proposed action as part of the NEPA 
process.

FIGURE
Floodplain Location Map  site is primarily within the 500-year floodplain (Zone 
B) and partially within the 100-year floodplain (Zone 
A10).

this page intentionally left blank 

Gruene Road Wastewater Treatment Plant Flood Protection Project
Draft Environmental Assessment (September 2003) 	i