Draft Environmental Assessment

Bandera County Maintenance Facility

Prepared for:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REGION VI

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				1
3.1	No Action 				1
3.2	Proposed Action				4
4.0	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS	4
4.1	Geology and Soils			4
4.2	Water Resources				6
4.2.1	Surface Water				6
4.2.2	Waters of the U.S. including Wetlands	7
4.2.3	Floodplains				7
4.2.4	Groundwater				8
4.3	Biological Resources			8
4.3.1	Flora and Fauna				8
4.3.2	Threatened/Endangered Species		9
4.4	Air Quality				11
4.5	Transportation				11
4.6	Noise					11
4.7	Cultural Resources			12
4.8	Socioeconomic				12
4.9	Environmental Justice			13
4.10	Safety					13
4.11	Hazardous Materials			13
5.0	CUMULATIVE IMPACTS			14
6.0	PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT			14
7.0	AGENCY COORDINATION			14
8.0	CONCLUSION				15
9.0	REFERENCES				16
10.0	LIST OF PREPARERS			17

APPENDICES
Site Photographs	Appendix A
Agency Correspondence	Appendix B 
Public Notice		Appendix C
	

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
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, President Bush declared a major disaster as a result of flooding in nine counties 
in central Texas (FEMA-1425-DR-TX).  The declaration was later expanded to include a total of 
39 counties.  Bandera County was one of the 39 counties.  As a result of damage sustained during 
the flooding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is considering funding the 
construction of a new maintenance facility for the Bandera County Engineer.  

In accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, PL 93-
288, as amended, and implementing regulations at 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 
206, FEMA is required to review the environmental effects of the proposed action prior to making 
a funding decision.  In accordance with 44 CFR, Part 10, FEMA has prepared this environmental 
assessment to meet the requirements of Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA).  The purpose of this environmental assessment is to analyze the alternatives and 
assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction of a new 
maintenance facility in Bandera County, Texas.

1.2 Project Location

The location of the proposed maintenance facility is on State Highway (SH) 173 approximately two 
miles north of the City of Bandera (Figure 1 and Figure 2).  The City of Bandera is located in 
Bandera County, approximately 35 miles northwest of San Antonio, Texas.  The project site lies 
on the northeast side of SH 173 on a 20-acre tract of undeveloped land owned by Bandera County. 

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The July 2002 floods interrupted the maintenance operations performed by the Bandera County 
Engineer's office and displaced operations and administrative staff.  The purpose of the proposed 
action is to allow the Bandera County Engineer to continue to provide effective maintenance 
services to the county by providing a facility to replace the one lost in the flooding.  During the 
flood event, water rose to approximately three feet inside the former maintenance facility and 
remained there for several days.  The building was deemed unsafe and subsequently demolished.  
The former maintenance facility was located within the 100-year floodplain.  

Prior to the July 2002 floods, Bandera County had one facility with which to maintain its vehicle 
fleet, serve as a materials storage area, and to provide offices for the Bandera County Engineer and 
maintenance staff.  A new facility is needed to replace and provide these same services.  The new 
facility should be in the vicinity of Bandera on an available property, outside the 100-year 
floodplain.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 No Action 

The No Action alternative would entail no construction of a new maintenance facility for the 
Bandera County Engineer.  Consequently, the Bandera County Engineer would be without an 
adequate facility for which to maintain its vehicles and to support its roadway maintenance 
operations.

FIGURE 1
Location Map  site is approximately two miles north of the City of Bandera, or approximately 35 
miles northwest of San Antonio, Texas.

FIGURE 2
Site Map  Aerial Photo - site is primarily fallow agricultural land with some trees and 
outbuildings in the western corner.
 
3.2 Proposed Action

Bandera County has prepared and submitted an application for FEMA funding under FEMA's 
Public Assistance Program being administered in response to FEMA-1425-DR-TX.  The proposed 
action is the construction of a new building and attendant features to serve as the Bandera County 
Engineer's maintenance facility.  The proposed new facility will consist of a maintenance barn 
and offices totaling about 5,200 square feet.  In addition to the main building, other development 
will include a parking area, materials storage areas, and a water well.  The total area needed for 
the proposed facility is expected to be between five and ten acres.  A conceptual layout of the 
proposed maintenance barn and offices is shown on Figure 3.

Other sites for the facility were reviewed by Bandera County but only one site met the 
requirements of locality (in the vicinity of Bandera), availability (willing seller), and affordability 
(reasonable cost to the County).  The proposed action would occur on a 20-acre site located 
approximately two miles north of Bandera.  The work would consist of minor grading, 
construction of the building and pavement areas, and installation of utilities (water, septic, electric, 
etc.).  The location of the facility within the 20-acre site has not yet been determined but it is 
expected that undeveloped portions of the site will be reserved for future expansion.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS

4.1 Geology and Soils

The site of the proposed new maintenance facility is located on a 20-acre tract of land, 
approximately two miles north of the City of Bandera.  The general area consists of rolling hills 
and is rural in nature.  The proposed site is located outside the city limits of Bandera.  The existing 
land use on the site is primarily agricultural.  Approximately 18 acres of the tract is under 
agricultural use.  The other two acres is lightly wooded and contains two mobile homes, belonging 
to the previous owner, and several out buildings.  Land use on the adjacent tracts is also 
agricultural.

The proposed project is located in the south-central part of Texas in the physiographic region 
known as the Edwards Plateau.  The dissected plateau has created the hilly topography found in the 
general area.  The elevations in the county range from 1,200 to 2,400 feet (USDA 1971).  The 
elevation at the site of the proposed maintenance facility is approximately 1,350 feet.  Average 
annual precipitation is about 29 inches.  The larger amounts of rainfall in Bandera County tend to 
occur in the months of April, May, June and September (USDA 1971).          

The limestones 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 flat-lying, creating the stair-stepped topography seen in the area.  A thin veneer of soil 
obscures any outcrops of the underlying geology on the site.  There are no quarries or other mining 
operations in the vicinity of the project site.
    
The Soil Survey of Bandera County indicates that the project site occurs within the Tarrant-Brackett 
soil association.  In general, these soils consist of very cobbly clayey to loamy, shallow soils on 
uplands.  These soils tend to form over limestone.  The units within this association include the 
Tarrant, Brackett, Frio, Denton, Krum, Nuvalde and Doss soils.  Specifically, the mapped soil on 
the site is identified as Denton Silty Clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes.

FIGURE 3
Conceptual Layout  the proposed new facility will consist of a maintenance barn, including two 
shop bays, and offices totaling about 5,200 square feet

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (P.L. 97-98, Sec. 1539-1549; 7 U.S. Code 4201, et seq.) was 
enacted to minimize the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as a result of 
federal actions.  The Natural Resources Conservation Service 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.  Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for 
production of specific high-value food and fiber crops.  It has the special combination of soil 
quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained 
high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable 
farming methods.   

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

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Construction of a new maintenance facility 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 runoff 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 Denton Silty Clay 1 to 3 percent slopes is listed as a Prime Farmland only when it is irrigated 
(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2003).  The site is not irrigated.  According to the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the proposed project does not contain Important 
Farmland and is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (letter attached, see 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 Bandera Creek.  Bandera Creek flows into the Medina River, 
located approximately four stream miles from the project site.  This section of the Medina River is 
listed as Stream Segment 1905 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 and public water supply.  Based on the TCEQ's 1999 Clean 
Water Act Section 303 (d) list, Stream Segment 1905 is not listed as a threatened or impaired 
waterway segment.  There are no wild and scenic rivers, as designated under the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, in the project area.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not change the site drainage nor have 
an effect on the surface water quality of the area.

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Potential impacts to surface waters associated with the 
construction of the new maintenance facility include the potential for 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 would disturb more than five acres, it would 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 Notice of Intent is required to be 
filed with the TCEQ and 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 with native plants.

Any adverse effects to water quality associated with the construction of the new maintenance 
facility would be short term and be minimized by the mitigation measures described above.  Once 
constructed, storm water best management practices will be applied to the operation of the facility.  
These practices would include proper storage and handling of materials, cleanup of spills, and 
proper disposal of hazardous or regulated substances.  Runoff from the site is not expected to have 
an adverse impact on Bandera Creek.  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 values 
of wetlands on federal property.

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 New Facility:  Prior to visiting the project site, a review of the U.S. 
Geological Survey quadrangle map for the area 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 indicate any 
potential areas containing waters of the U.S. on or adjacent to the site.  A site visit conducted on 
April 25, 2003 confirmed there are no waters of the U.S. subject to Section 404 permitting on the 
project site.  The proposed project would not impact waters of the U.S. and would not require a 
Section 404 permit. 

4.2.3 Floodplains 

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 
National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community-Panel Number 
480020 0135B), the project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain.  The nearest 
designated floodplain occurs along Bandera Creek.

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

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Since the project site is not located within a designated 
floodplain, construction of the new maintenance facility would have no impact on the floodplain 
and does not require a review under Executive Order 11988.   		

4.2.4 Groundwater

The primary source of groundwater in the area is the Trinity Aquifer.  The Trinity Aquifer extends 
in a band from north central Texas to south central Texas.  The geologic deposits making up the 
aquifer include limestones, sandstones and shales.  The varying geologic units of the Trinity Group 
result in varying water quality and yields depending on location and depth.  There is one water 
well currently located on the property.  According to the official TCEQ Edwards Aquifer recharge 
zone maps, the project site does not occur within the recharge zone or contributing zone of the 
Edwards Aquifer (TCEQ 2003(a)). 
  
Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would have no effect on groundwater.

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  The construction of the new maintenance facility would 
not have any substantial effect on the Trinity Aquifer in the area, however; a new water well into 
the aquifer would be included as part of the project.  Neither the depth nor yield of the well is 
known at this time.  The existing water well on the site, if not utilized, would be plugged and 
abandoned according to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations requirements.

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3.1 Flora and Fauna

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 prickly-pear (Opuntia lindheimeri), little bluestem 
(Schizachyrium scoparium), Texas grama (Bouteloua rigidiseta) and netleaf hackberry (Celtis 
reticulata).  

The vegetation on the project site is typical of that found in fallow fields and includes various 
grasses, forbs and wildflowers.  The approximately two acres of the site that is not in agricultural 
use is sparsely wooded.  Tree species on this portion of the site include netleaf hackberry, live oak, 
mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), Ashe juniper and domesticated pecan (Carya sp.).  No rare plants 
or habitats are listed as occurring on or adjacent to the project site.  Vegetation on the project site 
can be seen on the photos contained in Appendix A.  
 
Typical fauna in this portion of the Edwards Plateau includes white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 
virginianus), Rio Grande turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 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.  Because of the disturbed nature of the 
site, habitat for these species is poor.  

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 New Facility:  The construction of a new maintenance facility would 
result in clearing of vegetation and disturbance of any wildlife species in the immediate area.  
Clearing of vegetation would occur on five to ten acres of the 20 acre site.  An attempt would be 
made to avoid any large trees and incorporate existing vegetation into the site plan.  In general, the 
effects to plants and animals are expected to be minimal. 

4.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

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.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four species in Bandera County as being 
endangered.  These species are the Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapillus), Golden-cheeked 
Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Tobusch fishhook cactus (Ancistrocactus  tobuschii), and Texas 
snowbells (Styrax texana).  

Black-capped Vireo

The black-capped vireo is a small, insect-gleaning songbird that breeds primarily in central Texas 
and to a lesser extent in central Coahuila, Mexico and central Oklahoma.  Its breeding habitat 
consists of shrub or savannah vegetation with dense growths in the shrub layer from the ground to 
approximately six feet in height (Campbell 1995).  Black-capped vireo habitat can be characterized 
as mid-successional shrub-dominated vegetation, predominantly composed of shin oak, Ashe 
juniper, Texas oak (Q. buckleyi), live oak, and other woody vegetation growing in an open or 
partially closed canopy.  

Golden-cheeked Warbler

The golden-cheeked warbler inhabits woodlands containing Ashe juniper in combination with 
various deciduous species, including Texas oak, live oak, cedar elm, Texas persimmon (Diospryos 
texana), hackberry (Celtis spp.), evergreen sumac, Texas ash (Fraxinus texana), redbud (Cercis 
canadensis), escarpment black cherry, deciduous holly (Ilex decidua) and others.  These 
associations occur along drainages and canyons throughout the Balcones Fault Zone.  Ashe juniper 
is often the dominant woody plant and occurs at all sites occupied by the golden-cheeked warbler.  
The golden-cheeked warbler is a breeding resident of central Texas from late February through 
August.  

Tobusch Fishhook Cactus

The Tobusch fishhook cactus occurs in the western Edwards Plateau, including portions of Bandera 
County.  The cactus is round, usually two to three inches tall and up to three and half inches in 
diameter.  Typical habitat for the Tobusch fishhook cactus includes very gravelly soil over limestone, 
and short-grass areas within live-oak juniper shrublands.  

Texas Snowbells

Texas snowbells is an irregularly-branched, deciduous shrub or small tree, growing up to 15 feet in 
height.  This species blooms in April and has small, white, bell-shaped flowers.  Typical habitat 
for Texas snowbells includes limestone bluffs and cliff faces along rivers and streams in the 
Edwards Plateau.

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

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  The site visit conducted on April 25, 2003 did not 
indicate the presence of habitat suitable for the endangered or threatened species listed for Bandera 
County. The vegetation on the project site is typical of that found in fallow fields and includes 
various grasses, forbs and wildflowers.  The approximately two acres of the site that is not in 
agricultural use is sparsely wooded.  Tree species on this portion of the site include netleaf 
hackberry, live oak, mesquite, Ashe juniper and pecan.  Vegetation on the adjacent properties is as 
follows:

- The property to the northwest of the subject tract contains a residence and is heavily grazed 
by goats.  The tree species on the adjacent property include netleaf hackberry, live oak and 
mesquite.  Very little understory and herbaceous growth exists on this property.

- The property to the northeast of the subject tract is undeveloped and appears to be 
pastureland.  The portion of this property closest to the subject tract is lightly wooded and 
savannah-like.  The canopy cover is estimated at 30%-40%.  The tree species on the 
property included medium to large live oaks, mesquite and cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia).  
The understory consists of a variety of medium sized grasses.  Because this vegetation 
community appears relatively mature and does not contain a significant broad-leafed shrub 
layer, it does not appear to be suitable habitat for the black-capped vireo.  In addition, the 
limited canopy cover and lack of Ashe juniper do not appear to provide suitable habitat for 
the golden-cheeked warbler.

- The property to the southeast of the subject tract is a hayfield.

- The property to the southwest of the subject tract is highway right-of-way.   
  
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 new maintenance 
facility 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, Bandera County is currently designated as "in-attainment" for these standards 
(TCEQ 2003(b)).  

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

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Pollutant emissions from construction equipment may 
result in minor, temporary 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. 

4.5 Transportation

The project site is located along SH 173 approximately two miles north of Bandera.  SH 173 is the 
main road between Bandera and the City of Kerrville, which lies approximately 20 miles to the 
north.  SH 173 is a rural two-lane roadway that carries light traffic.  According to the Texas 
Department of Transportation, average daily traffic on this portion of SH 173 is 3,900 vehicles 
(TxDOT 2003).

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

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Construction of the new maintenance facility at the 
proposed location may have a slight effect on transportation by increasing the number of vehicles 
on SH 173.  The increase would be expected to be minor and would be due to staff traveling to and 
from the maintenance office, and county maintenance vehicles leaving and arriving at the site. 
   
4.6 Noise

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound.  The closest noise receptor is a residence 
approximately 500 feet from 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 and 
vehicular traffic.  The noise levels generated would be limited to workday daylight hours for the 
duration of the construction 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 New Facility:  Construction of the new maintenance facility would result 
in a slight increase in noise during the construction of the facility.  The increase in noise is 
expected to be minor and would not affect any sensitive receptors.

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 two mobile homes and several small outbuildings 
on it.  No historical markers were noted in the area during the site visit.  Coordination with the 
Texas Historical Commission was 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 New Facility:  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 new maintenance 
facility at the proposed location would not affect any known archeological or historic resources in 
the area (letter attached in Appendix B).  Should any historic or archaeological materials be 
discovered during construction, all activities on the site would be halted immediately and the 
contractor and/or Bandera County would contact FEMA and the Texas Historical Commission for 
further guidance.

4.8 Socioeconomic

According to the 2000 census, Bandera County has a population of 17,645.  The City of Bandera is 
the county seat of Bandera County and has a population of 1,172.  The primary industries in the 
county are tourism, hunting, fishing, and ranching (Texas Almanac 1999).  Per capita income in 
the county is $19,635 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 84.1% of 
the population in Bandera County is white; 13.5% is Hispanic or Latino; and 2.4% is "other."  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative could have a negative effect on 
socioeconomic conditions in the area.  Some inefficiency would occur as county maintenance 
operations are hindered by an inadequate maintenance facility, or lack thereof.  Degraded roadway 
condition resulting from a lack of maintenance could hinder growth and development.    

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Construction of the new maintenance facility would 
facilitate and support economic growth in the county by providing adequate maintenance operations 
and upkeep of county roads.  The proposed site of the facility will also accommodate future 
expansion if the county should decide that additional facilities are needed.  This will save the 
county money in the long term.  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.  

Alternative A  No Action:  The No Action alternative would not have disproportionate impacts on 
minority or low-income populations.    

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  The proposed action is not expected to have adverse or 
disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations.  The benefits of a new 
maintenance facility are expected to be proportional to all residents in Bandera County.

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 could have a negative effect on the general 
safety of the residents of Bandera County.  The lack of an adequate maintenance facility would 
hinder maintenance operations on county roads.  Degraded roadway conditions could result in 
unsafe driving conditions for the general public.    

Alternative B  Construct New Facility:  Construction of the new maintenance facility would allow 
Bandera County to continue, and expand if necessary, their maintenance operations.  These 
operations include roadway maintenance, materials storage and emergency response.  These 
operations are critical to the health and safety of residents throughout Bandera County.   

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.  No evidence of overhead 
transmission lines or overhead electrical transformers potentially containing polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs) was noted in the field.  

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 Bandera, 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 New Facility:  Construction of the new maintenance facility 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 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of 
the action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 
what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects 
can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 
time.  There are no other known projects that, when added to the proposed project, have a 
cumulative impact on the human environment.

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVMENT

The public will be invited to comment on the proposed action.  A legal notice will be posted in the 
local newspaper, The Bandera Review, and this Draft Environmental Assessment will be made 
available for review at the local library for a 30-day period.

7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS

As part of the development of this Environmental Assessment, state and federal resource protection 
agencies were contacted.  

Because the project will disturb more than one acre, a TCEQ TPDES storm water permit will be 
required.  It is anticipated that no other permits or approvals will be needed from any of the other 
regulatory agencies; however, the following agencies have been contacted and asked to comment 
on the proposed project:

- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)
- Texas Historical Commission
- Natural Resources Conservation Service

8.0 CONCLUSION

The findings of this Environmental Assessment conclude that the proposed construction of a new 
maintenance facility for the Bandera County Engineer 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. 

9.0 REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Hazard Boundary Map.  Bandera 
County.  National Flood Insurance Program.  Panel Number 4800200135B.

Natural Resources Conservation Service.  Personal communication with Mr. Lee Knox of the 
Kerrville Service Center.  May 27, 2003

Texas Almanac.  1999.  Printed by the Dallas Morning News
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(a).  2003. 
http://gis.tnrcc.state.tx.us/website/iredwards   Site visited May 22, 2003. 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(b).  2003.  http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips  
Site visited August 4, 2003. 

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC).  1999.  The State of Texas Water 
Quality Inventory, 1996.  Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program. 

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.

Texas Department of Transportation.  Personal communication with Ms. Serena Burrough, May 8, 
2003.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County QuickFacts. Bandera County. 
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48187.html.  Site visited on May 16, 2003.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1971.  Soil Survey of Bandera County, 
Texas.  

U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map, 7.5-minute series, Bandera Pass, Texas.  1964, 
photorevised 1973.

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

10.0 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 Bandera County Maintenance Facility Project
Bandera, Texas
FEMA-DR-1425-TX.

Bandera County has prepared and submitted an application to FEMA for funding the 
construction of a new building and attendant features to serve as the new Bandera 
County Engineer's maintenance facility.  The proposed new facility will consist of a 
maintenance barn and offices totaling about 5,200 square feet.  In addition to the main 
building, other development will include a parking area, materials storage areas, and 
water well.  The proposed action would occur on a 20-acre site along SH 173, 
approximately two miles north of Bandera.  

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 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 new maintenance facility.
 
The draft Environmental Assessment is available for review from October 1, 2003 to 
October 30, 2003, at the Bandera County Library located at 515 Main Street, Bandera, 
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 can be mailed to Carlos Swonke, Turner 
Collie & Braden Inc., 400 West 15 Street, Suite 500, Austin, TX 78701.  Comments should 
be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2003

this page intentionally left blank 

Bandera County Maintenance Facility - Draft Environmental Assessment (September 2003) 20