Alamo Plaza Post Office
Cenotaph and Medical Arts Building
San Antonio, Texas
Draft ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the Proposed Construction of a New Federal Courthouse in Downtown San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas
Prepared by:
GSA Starmark
General Services Administration
Greater Southwest Region (Region 7)
Public Buildings Service
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
January 2008
1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
 4 vii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 5 SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................1-1
6 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................1-1
7 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................1-1
8 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...................................................1-3
9 1.3.1 Issues  Studied in Detail .......................................................................................1-3
10 1.3.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Substances ..........................................................1-4
11 1.3.1.2 Socioeconomics  (including Environmental Justice)......................................1-4
12 1.3.1.3 Public Services and Utilities..........................................................................1-6
13 1.3.1.4 Hydrology ......................................................................................................1-6
14 1.3.1.5 Land Use and Zoning....................................................................................1-6
15 1.3.1.6 Traffic,  Transportation, and Parking..............................................................1-7
16 1.3.1.7 Air Quality......................................................................................................1-7
17 1.3.1.8 Noise .............................................................................................................1-9
18 1.3.1.9 Cultural and Historic Resources..................................................................1-11
19 1.3.2 Issues  Eliminated from Detailed Study..............................................................1-12
20 1.3.2.1 Soils.............................................................................................................1-12
21 1.3.2.2 Vegetation and Wildlife ...............................................................................1-12
22 1.3.2.3 Asbestos......................................................................................................1-16
23 1.3.2.4 Lead-Based Paint........................................................................................1-16
24 1.3.2.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ...............................................................1-17
25 SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......................... 2-1
26 2.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS...................................................................2-1
27 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ..........................................2-1
28 2.2.1 Renovation of the Existing Courthouse ...............................................................2-2
29 2.2.2 Renovation and Use of Another Facility/Structure...............................................2-2
30 2.2.3 Lease  Space........................................................................................................2-2
31 2.2.4 New Construction ................................................................................................2-3
32 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED STUDY................................2-3
33 2.3.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................2-3
34 2.3.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................2-4
35 2.3.2.1 Construction Activities...................................................................................2-4
36 2.3.2.2 Operations.....................................................................................................2-6
37 2.3.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................2-6
38 2.3.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................2-8
39 2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES......................................................................2-9
40 SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................... 3-1
41 3.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE......................................................................3-1
42 3.1.1 River Site .............................................................................................................3-1
43 3.1.2 Hemisfair Site ......................................................................................................3-1
44 3.1.3 Police Headquarters Site.....................................................................................3-2
45 3.2 SOCIOECONOMICS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE)...............................3-6
46 3.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES............................................................................3-10
47 3.4 HYDROLOGY................................................................................................................3-11
48 3.5 LAND USE AND ZONING.............................................................................................3-12
49 3.5.1 River Site ...........................................................................................................3-14
 50 3.5.2 Hemisfair Site ....................................................................................................3-14
51 3.5.3 Police Headquarters Site...................................................................................3-15
1
 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)
3
 4 3.6 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING.........................................................3-16
5 3.6.1 River Site ...........................................................................................................3-17
 6 3.6.2 Hemisfair Site ....................................................................................................3-17
7 3.6.3 Police Headquarters Site...................................................................................3-17
8 3.7 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................3-18
9 3.8 NOISE............................................................................................................................3-18
10 3.9 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES.................................................................3-18
11 3.9.1 River Site ...........................................................................................................3-19
 12 3.9.2 Hemisfair Site ....................................................................................................3-19
13 3.9.3 Police Headquarters Site...................................................................................3-19
14 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES................................... 4-1
15 4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE......................................................................4-1
16 4.1.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-1
17 4.1.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-1
18 4.1.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-1
19 4.1.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-1
20 4.2 SOCIOECONOMICS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE)...............................4-2
21 4.2.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-2
22 4.2.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-2
23 4.2.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-2
24 4.2.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-3
25 4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES..............................................................................4-3
26 4.3.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-3
27 4.3.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-3
28 4.3.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-4
29 4.3.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-4
30 4.4 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................4-5
31 4.4.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-5
32 4.4.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-5
33 4.4.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-5
34 4.4.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-6
35 4.5 LAND USE AND ZONING...............................................................................................4-6
36 4.5.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-6
37 4.5.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-6
38 4.5.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-7
39 4.5.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-8
40 4.6 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING...........................................................4-8
41 4.6.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-8
42 4.6.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-8
43 4.6.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2...............................................4-9
44 4.6.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site..........................4-9
45 4.7 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................4-9
46 4.7.1 No Action Alternative ...........................................................................................4-9
47 4.7.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ..................................................4-9
48 4.7.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2.............................................4-12
49 4.7.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site........................4-13
50 4.8 NOISE............................................................................................................................4-14
51 4.8.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................4-14
52 4.8.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ................................................4-15
53 4.8.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2.............................................4-17
54 4.8.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site........................4-17
55
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)
2
 3 4.9 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES.................................................................4-18
4 4.9.1 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................4-18
5 4.9.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site ................................................4-18
6 4.9.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2.............................................4-19
7 4.9.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site........................4-19
8 SECTION 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................ 5-1
9 SECTION 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.........................................................6-1
10 SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES......................................................................... 7-1
11 SECTION 8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................8-1
12
 13 Appendix A  EDR Federal and State Database Searches
14 Appendix B Preliminary Stormwater Run-off Calculations
  15 Appendix C  Air Quality Analysis Calculations
16 Appendix D  Noise Analysis Calculations
  17 Appendix E  Cultural/Historic Background and Report
 18 Appendix F  Public Involvement
1
 2 LIST OF FIGURES
3
 4 1.1 General Location Map.....................................................................................................1-2
5 2.1 Alternative Site Locations................................................................................................2-2
6 2.2 River Site .........................................................................................................................2-5
7 2.3 Hemisfair Site ..................................................................................................................2-7
8 2.4 Police Headquarters Site.................................................................................................2-8
9 3.1 Economic Impact of Tourism and Hospitality..................................................................3-8
10 3.2 Financial Contribution from Tourism and Hospitality.......................................................3-9
11 4-1  Estimate of Downwind Concentrations of PM10 at the River Site..................................4-11
12 4-2  Estimate of Downwind Concentrations of PM10 AT THE HEMISFAIR SITE ................4-12
13 4-3  Estimate of Downwind Concentrations of PM10 at the Police Headquarters Site .........4-14
14
 15
 16 LIST OF TABLES
17
 18 1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................................................................1-8
19 1.2 Applicability Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants in Nonattainment Areas.........................1-8
20 1.3 Applicability Thresholds for Attainment/Maintenance Areas...........................................1-9
21 1.4 Common Sound Levels.................................................................................................1-11
22 1.5 State and Federally Protected Species Occurring  or Potentially Occurring
23  In Bexar County, Texas.................................................................................................1-13
24 2.1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives and Purpose and Need Guidelines ....................2-9
25 2.2 Alternatives  Comparison Matrix Summary....................................................................2-10
26 3.1 Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the River Site ....................3-2
27 3.2 Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Hemisfair Site .............3-3
28 3.3 Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Police
29  Headquarters Site............................................................................................................3-4
30 3.4 Demographic Data for Tract 1101, Bexar County, and the City of San Antonio.............3-6
31 3.5 Demographic Data for Block Group 3 and Block Group 7 ..............................................3-7
32 3.6 October 2007 City of San Antonio Published Traffic Count Data Summary.................3-17
33 4-1 Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhausts.......................................................4-11
34 4-2 Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions at the River Site....................................................4-11
35 4-3 Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the River Site.............................4-12
36 4-4 Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions at the Hemisfair Site.............................................4-13
37 4-5 Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the Hemisfair Site......................4-13
38 4-6 Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions at the Police Headquarters Site ...........................4-14
39 4-7 Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the Police Headquarters Site.....4-14
40 4-8 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels...........................................................4-15
41 4-9 Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the River Site................................4-16
42 4-10 Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Hemisfair Site.........................4-17
43 4-11 Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Police Headquarters Site.......4-18
44
1  2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3  4 This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with Section 102 of the National  5 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 to 4370d), as implemented 6 by the regulations promulgated by the Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal  7 Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508).  The principal objectives of NEPA are to ensure the careful 8 consideration of environmental aspects of proposed  actions in federal decision-making processes and to  9 make environmental information available to decision makers and the public  before decisions are made 10 and actions are taken.  Additionally, this EA follows the General Services Administration (GSA) NEPA 11 guidelines, namely GSA Order ADM 1095.1F and the Public Buildings Service (PBS) NEPA Desk Guide, 12 both dated October 1999.   13  14 Purpose and Need 15  16 Based on the Long-Range Facility Plan for the U.S., Federal Courts, Western District of  Texas, the  17 purpose of the proposed action is to meet the courts 10-year  projected needs for additional judgeships in  18 San Antonio, and by the need to consolidate space to improve efficiency.  The existing John H. Wood, Jr. 19 U.S. Courthouse is not large enough to house the entire court as it exists and agencies supporting the 20 court have been forced to move to the nearby federal building.  There is not enough room at the 21 courthouse for either of the two circuit judges residing in San Antonio.  The existing  courthouse has 22 limited space for senior judges. Three of the four district judges in San Antonio will be eligible to take 23 senior status within 10 years.  As those judges elect to take senior  status, they will be required to 24 surrender their courtrooms and chambers to replacement judges.  The only space in the courthouse for 25 senior judges to move to is a visiting chambers and courtroom, which is inadequate for three judges plus  26 the visiting function.  Based on caseload projections and long range planning, the Judiciary predicts that 27 one additional district judge and two additional magistrate judges will be authorized for San Antonio in the  28 next 10 years. The number of district judges will increase from four to five.  The number  of magistrate 29 judges will increase from three to five. There will be a concurrent increase in district support staff and 30 supervision officers to manage the increased caseload. There is no space in the current courthouse for 31 the resultant new judges and staff.  The lack of space at the existing courthouse also compromises 32 security for judges, court staff, attorneys, jurors and other court participants. The U. S. Marshals Service 33 is split between two locations, the courthouse and the federal building. The existing courthouse also does  34 not have prisoner sallyports, holding cells, secure corridors, or secure elevators that  are compliant with  35 the courts and marshals respective design guides. 36  37 In an effort to satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action, several guidelines  were developed to  38 compare and contrast alternative ways  of fulfilling the objectives of the proposed action.  Those specific  39 guidelines include: 40  41 (1) Provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the community. 42 (2) Provide a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria.   43 (3) Provide a space/facility that allows for maximum efficiency between courts and court-related 44 agencies.   45 (4) Provide a space/facility solution within the San Antonio Central Business District that provides a  46 positive influence on local development/redevelopment.   47 (5) Provide the required space/facility, while minimizing disruption of current federal activities. 48 (6) Provide a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment.   49 (7) Provide an overall space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.    50 (8) Should a new site be necessary, a majority of the overall site should be available for acquisition 51 by the GSA. 52  53  54  55  56
Sky view of alternative site locations for the new Federal Courthouse.
Highlighting the tree possible locations: Police Headquarters Site, River Site, and Hemisfair Site.
1 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2  3 Several alternatives were initially developed in an effort to satisfy the purpose and need for the project but  4 were eventually eliminated from consideration because they did not satisfy the established purpose and 5 need guidelines.  Those alternatives eliminated from consideration include: 6  7   Renovation of the Existing Courthouse 8   Renovation and Use of Another Facility/Structure 9  Lease  space 10  11 Additionally, construction of a new Federal Courthouse was considered as an alternative.  As part of the  12 planning process, several potential sites were identified and eliminated from consideration because they  13 did not fully satisfy the purpose and need guidelines identified earlier.  These sites included the: City Site 14 (near City Hall), K-Mart Site, Television Site, Existing Courthouse Site, Existing Government Parking Site, 15 Motor Bank  Site, Annex Jail Site, Fox Tech Site, Sunset Site, San Antonio ISD Site, Non-CBD Site 1, 16 Non-CBD Site 2, San Antonio Housing Authority Site, Hemisfair Site 1, and the Hemisfair Site 3. 17  18 Three additional sites identified were, however, considered feasible  for the potential construction of a new 19 Federal Courthouse in San Antonio.  These three sites included the: River Site, Hemisfair Site 2, and the 20 River Site (Figure ES-1). 21
23 Figure ES-1. Alternative Site Locations. 24  25 Construction  of a new Federal Courthouse at one of these three sites fully satisfies the established 26 purpose and need guidelines and were therefore carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA.  The no 27 action alternative does not satisfy the guidelines; however, pursuant to NEPA, the no action alternative 28 has been carried forward as the baseline to which potential impacts of the alternative can be measured. 29 As a result, the following alternatives are considered in this EA:
1  No Action 2   Construction and Operation of a New Federal Courthouse at the River Site 3   Construction and Operation of a New Federal Courthouse at the Hemisfair Site 2 4   Construction and Operation of a New Federal Courthouse at the Police Headquarters Site 5  6 Existing Environment 7  8 In accordance with CEQ regulations (1500.4 and  1501.7), issues to be addressed or important issues  9 relating to this proposed action are identified through scoping.  For this EA, internal scoping, as defined  10 by Section 4.1.4 of the PBS NEPA Desk Guide, was conducted, along with preliminary public interest in 11 the site selection process.  Those issues identified include: hazardous materials and substances; 12 socioeconomics (including environmental  justice); public services and utilities; hydrology; land use and  13 zoning; traffic, transportation, and parking; air quality; noise; and cultural and historic resources. 14  15 Environmental Consequences 16  17 The following table (Table ES-1) provides a summary of the environmental consequences associated with  18 implementing the proposed action through the selection of the three action alternatives or selecting the no  19 action alternative.  As demonstrated in Table ES-1, selection of the River Site would be expected to result 20 in a significant impact to historic properties.  Selection of any of the other alternatives would be expected  21 to result in no significant impacts to the environment.
  Alternatives
 Environmental Attributes (Threshold Criteria)  No Action  River Site  Hemisfair Site 2  Police  Headquarters Site
Hazardous Materials and Waste
(Significant hazardous materials and/or waste generated as  No  No  No  No
a result of construction activities?)
(Existing hazardous materials and/or waste issues at the  No  No  No  No
site based on federal and state database searches?)
Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice)
(Results in significant change in area employment, income,  No  No  No  No
and/or housing characteristics?)
(Action occurs in an area considered to be minority in  No  No  No  No
nature?)
(Action occurs in an area considered to be low-income in  Yes   Yes   Yes   Yes
nature?)
(Results in Environmental Justice Impacts?)  No  No  No  No
(Results in likely impacts to area tourism?)  No  No  No  No
Public Services and Utilities (Results in excessive strain or demand on existing facilities and/or infrastructure?)   No   No   No   No
 Hydrology
(Results in impacts to surface water features?)  No  No  No  No
(Results in stormwater run-off in excess of defined limits?)  No  No  No  No
(Results in impacts to groundwater resources?)  No  No  No  No
(Results in development within the defined 100-year flood  No  No  No  No
zone?)
 Land Use and Zoning
(Action could be in conflict with existing and/or planned land  No   No 1  No  No
use of the site?)
(Action could be in conflict with existing and/or planned land  No   No 1  No  No
use of the immediate surrounding area?)
(Action is in conflict with prevailing zoning designations?)   No  No  No  No
Traffic, Transportation, and Parking
(Results in significant impact to area traffic and  No  No  No  No
transportation routes?)
(Results in parking requirements that could not be  No  No  No  No
 adequately met?)
 Air Quality (Results in an increase above de minimis standards?)   No   No   No   No
Noise
(Results in unacceptable short-term levels at nearby  No  No  No  No
sensitive receptors?)
 (Results in long-term increases to unacceptable levels?)  No  No  No  No
Cultural and Historic Resources  (Results in significant impact to archeological resources?) (Results in significant impact to historic architectural   No No    No 2   Yes 3   No  No 3   No  No 3
Table ES-1. Alternatives Comparison Matrix Summary.
properties?)
2 1 - Although not significant, based on the adopted 1999 Downtown  Neighborhood Plan, it appears that development of a new 3  Federal Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the River Site could be interpreted as being in conflict with the adopted 4  land use vision for the site and the immediate surrounding area.    5 2 - An archeological survey  would be conducted prior to ground-disturbing or other construction activities to insure no impacts to 6 archeological resources that may be present at the site.  7 3 - GSA would consult with the SHPO and interested parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the 8  potential effects to historic properties as a result of this undertaking.   9
1  2 SECTION 1.0 3 PURPOSE AND NEED 4  5 This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with Section 102 of the National  6 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 to 4370d), as implemented 7 by the regulations promulgated by the Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal  8 Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508).  The principal objectives of NEPA are to ensure the careful 9 consideration of environmental aspects of proposed  actions in federal decision-making processes and to  10 make environmental information available to decision makers and the public  before decisions are made 11 and actions are taken.  Additionally, this EA follows the General Services Administration (GSA) NEPA 12 guidelines, namely GSA Order ADM 1095.1F and the Public Buildings Service (PBS) NEPA Desk Guide, 13 both dated October 1999.  In accordance with CEQ regulations (1502.13), this section of the EA briefly 14 specifies the underlying purpose and need to which the GSA is responding in proposing the alternatives  15 for implementing the proposed action. 16  17 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION 18  19 The GSA proposes to meet the 10-year occupancy needs and the 30-year design needs of the U.S. 20 Federal Courts, Western District of Texas, in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas (Figure 1-1). 21  22 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 23  24 Based on the Long-Range Facility Plan for the U.S., Federal Courts, Western District of  Texas, the  25 purpose of the proposed action is to meet the courts 10-year  projected needs for additional judgeships in  26 San Antonio, and by the need to consolidate space to improve efficiency.  The existing John H. Wood, Jr. 27 U.S. Courthouse is not large enough to house the entire court as it exists and agencies supporting the 28 court have been forced to move to the nearby federal building.  There is not enough room at the 29 courthouse for either of the two circuit judges residing in San Antonio.  The existing  courthouse has 30 limited space for senior judges. Three of the four district judges in San Antonio will be eligible to take 31 senior status within 10 years.  As those judges elect to take senior  status, they will be required to 32 surrender their courtrooms and chambers to replacement judges.  The only space in the courthouse for 33 senior judges to move to is a visiting chambers and courtroom, which is inadequate for three judges plus  34 the visiting function.  Based on caseload projections and long range planning, the Judiciary predicts that 35 one additional district judge and two additional magistrate judges will be authorized for San Antonio in the  36 next 10 years. The number of district judges will increase from four to five.  The number  of magistrate 37 judges will increase from three to five. There will be a concurrent increase in district support staff and 38 supervision officers to manage the increased caseload. There is no space in the current courthouse for 39 the resultant new judges and staff.  The lack of space at the existing courthouse also compromises 40 security for judges, court staff, attorneys, jurors and other court participants. The U. S. Marshals Service 41 is split between two locations, the courthouse and the federal building. The existing courthouse also does  42 not have prisoner sallyports, holding cells, secure corridors, or secure elevators that  are compliant with  43 the courts and marshals respective design guides. 44  45 In an effort to satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action, several guidelines  were developed to  46 compare and contrast alternative ways  of fulfilling the objectives of the proposed action.  Those specific  47 guidelines include: 48  49 (1)  Provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the 50 community.  To meet the short-term occupancy needs, the space/facility must provide seven 51 district courtrooms and eight district judge chambers (5 district and 3 senior district), five 52 magistrate courtrooms and  chambers, and one  Court of Appeals resident changers.  The  site 53 must be of sufficient size to satisfy the long-term design needs.   54
Map view of the city of San Antonio with an out line of Bexar County.
1  2 (2)  Provide a space/facility that satisfies  the necessary design criteria.  The space/facility must 3 comply with the U.S. Courts Design Guide (USCDG) as well as the provisions of the Americans 4 with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Public Law [PL] 101-336, 1990), the Uniform Federal Accessibility 5 Standards, fire safety standards, and the energy conservation requirements of GSA PBS/Q-100. 6  7 (3)  Provide a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency  between courts and court-8 related agencies. The space/facility must provide for the consolidation of all the District Court, 9 U.S. Marshals Service, and other related operations in one location. 10  11 (4)  Provide a space/facility solution within the San Antonio Central Business District that 12 provides a positive influence on local development/redevelopment.  GSA is  committed to 13 promoting healthy communities and neighborhoods  throughout the United States, especially in  14 revitalizing downtown urban areas.  GSA property management decisions try to accommodate  15 Executive Order (EO) 13006 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nations 16 Central Cities, May 1996) and EO 12072 (Federal Space Management, August 1978), both  17 extolling the virtues of a federal presence in revitalizing and restoring historically important  18 downtown areas and urban centers. 19  20 (5)  Provide the required space/facility,  while minimizing disruption of current federal 21 activities. Any proposed improvements must have minimal impact on the activities of the  22 existing facilities and federal agency personnel. 23  24 (6)  Provide a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment. The needs of 25 the U.S. Federal Courts should be met while minimizing (to the extent possible) the impact to the  26 natural and man-made environment. 27  28 (7)  Provide an overall space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.  GSA would like to  29 choose an alternative that is the most cost-effective while still meeting all other selection  30 guidelines. 31  32 (8)  Should a new  site be necessary, a majority of the overall site should be available for  33 acquisition by the GSA.  The GSA Administrator (or his designee) is authorized to acquire, by 34 purchase, condemnation, donation, exchange, or otherwise, such lands or interests in lands as 35 he deems necessary for use as sites, or additions to sites, for public buildings authorized to be  36 constructed or altered.  The GSA Administrator (or his designee) is authorized to select such site  37 as in his estimation is the most advantageous to the United States and to acquire such site  38 without regard to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). 39  40 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT  41  42 This EA documents and discloses the environmental impacts that could result should the GSA implement  43 the proposed  action through selection of one of the alternatives.  Data presented in this EA (and therefore 44 the analysis) are based on a variety of previous studies/investigations conducted as part of the planning 45 process as well as other secondary and tertiary sources developed as  part of the NEPA process.  These 46 studies/investigations are detailed later in this document.  Issues in the EA were determined through  47 scoping.  As defined in the CEQ regulations (1508.25), the scope consists of the range of actions, 48 alternatives, and impacts to be considered in a NEPA document. 49  50 1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail 51  52 In accordance with CEQ regulations (1500.4 and  1501.7), issues to be addressed or important issues  53 relating to this proposed action are identified through scoping.  For this EA, internal scoping, as defined  54 by Section 4.1.4 of the PBS NEPA Desk Guide, was conducted, along with preliminary public interest in 55 the site selection process.  Issues identified for analysis in this EA could be supplemented by additional
1 public involvement as part of the NEPA process.  Those issues identified and their potential impacts from 2 selecting one of the alternatives for implementing the proposed action are as follows. 3
4 1.3.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Substances 5 6 Concerns over the improper handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes that posed a continuing 7 threat to the environment and a danger to human health led to the enactment of the Resource 8 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.  The RCRA replaced the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 9 authorized the USEPA to provide for cradle-to-grave management of hazardous waste and set a 10 framework for the management of non-hazardous municipal solid waste.  Under RCRA, a waste is 11 defined as hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic, or listed by the USEPA as being 12 hazardous.  The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 13 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 authorize the USEPA to 14 respond to spills and other releases of hazardous substances to the environment.  It also authorizes the 15 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  Title III of SARA authorizes the 16 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires facility operators with 17 hazardous substances to prepare comprehensive emergency plans and to report accidental releases. 18 EO 12856 (Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, August 19 1993) requires federal agencies to comply with the provisions of EPCRA.  20 21 Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) established requirements and authorities to identify 22 and control toxic chemical hazards to human health and the environment.  The TSCA authorized the 23 USEPA to gather information on chemical risks, require companies to test chemicals for toxic effects, and 24 regulate chemicals with unreasonable risk.  The TSCA also singled out polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 25 for regulation and as a result are being phased out.  The TSCA and its regulations govern the 26 manufacture, processing, distribution, use, marking, storage, disposal, cleanup, and release reporting 27 requirements for numerous chemicals like PCBs. PCBs are persistent when released into the 28 environment and accumulate in the tissues of living organisms.  They have been shown to cause adverse 29 health effects on laboratory animals and may cause adverse health effects in humans. 30 31 Implementing the proposed action through selection of one of the alternatives could disturb and/or 32 generate hazardous wastes, consume hazardous materials, or disturb known hazardous materials sites 33 listed on federal and state databases.  Potential effects from hazardous materials will be determined by 34 the absence/presence of known contaminants on the sites and listed sites within standard search radii, 35 and the removal and proper disposal of hazardous wastes during demolition and construction activities. 36
37 1.3.1.2 Socioeconomics (Including Environmental Justice) 38 39 Socioeconomic analyses generally include detailed investigations of the prevailing population, income, 40 employment, and housing conditions of a community or area of interest.  The socioeconomic conditions of 41 a region of influence (ROI) could be affected by changes in the rate of population growth, changes in the 42 demographic characteristics of a ROI, or changes in employment within the ROI caused by the 43 implementation of the proposed action.  In addition to these characteristics, populations of special 44 concern, as addressed by EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 45 Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 1994), are identified and analyzed for environmental 46 justice impacts.47 48 EO 12898 requires a federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 49 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high human health or environmental effects 50 of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations.  A 51 memorandum from the President concerning EO 12898 stated that federal agencies should collect and 52 analyze information concerning a projects effects on minorities or low-income groups, when required by 53 NEPA. If such investigations find that minority or low-income groups experience a disproportionate 54 adverse effect, then avoidance or mitigation measures are to be taken. 55
1 According to the CEQ (1997), a minority population can be described as being composed of the following 2 population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, not of Hispanic 3 origin, or Hispanic, and exceeding 50 percent of the population in an area or the minority population 4 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 5 general population.  Race and ethnicity are two separate categories of minority populations. A minority6 population can be defined by race, by ethnicity, or by a combination of the two distinct classifications. 7 Race as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB 2001) includes: 8 9  White  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or 10 North Africa; 11 12  Black or African American  A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa; 13 14  American Indian or Alaska Native  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 15 North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or 16 community attachment; 17 18  Asian  A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or 19 the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, 20 Pakistan, or the Philippine Islands; and 21 22  Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders  A person having origins in any of the original 23 peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 24 25 The USCB defines ethnicity as either being of Hispanic origin or not being of Hispanic origin.  Hispanic 26 origin is defined as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central America, or other 27 Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (USCB 2001). 28 29 A minority population can be defined in multiple ways; for example, a population under consideration may 30 be demographically composed of 45 percent Black, 6 percent Asian, 40 percent White, and 9 percent all 31 other races or combination of races.  Additionally, a minority population can also be defined through 32 ethnicity, where the population under consideration is demographically composed of 80 percent White, 10 33 percent Black, and 10 percent all other races or combination of races, but has an ethnic composition of 34 98 percent Hispanic origin and 2 percent of the population not of Hispanic origin.  Total minority 35 population can also be determined by identifying the White, non-Hispanic portion of the population. 36 Additionally, race and ethnicity can be determined through data that identify all races within Hispanic and 37 non-Hispanic portions. 38 39 Each year the USCB defines the national poverty thresholds, which are measured in terms of household 40 income dependent upon the number of persons within the household.  Individuals falling below the 41 poverty threshold ($17,603 for a household of four in 2000 [USCB 2007]) are considered low-income 42 individuals.  USCB census tracts where at least 20 percent of the residents are considered poor are 43 known as poverty areas (USCB 1995).  When the percentage of residents considered poor is greater than 44 40 percent, the census tract becomes an extreme poverty area. 45 46 Implementing the proposed action through the selection of one of the alternatives could affect local 47 demographics, employment, and income potential, as well as localized minority and/or low-income 48 populations.  Potential effects to income and employment are determined by an unacceptable change 49 (i.e., significant loss or decrease) in these components; effects to populations of special concern are 50 quantified in this EA by the number of individuals and/or populations affected.  Additionally, because of 51 the location of the sites under consideration and the fact that San Antonio is a major visitor and tourist 52 destination, the potential impacts to tourism are discussed.   53 54 55 56
1 1.3.1.3 Public Services and Utilities 2 3 Public services and utilities include local government services such as police, fire, and schools and 4 utilities such as gas, water/sewer, and electricity.  Impacts to public services are determined in this EA by 5 the presence/absence of an unacceptable change in the level of service to other consumers of those 6 resources within the general vicinity of the proposed action. 7
8 1.3.1.4 Hydrology 9 10 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, 11 was enacted to protect these resources.  The Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (33 USC 26), 12 also known as the CWA Amendments, set the national policy objective to restore and maintain the 13 chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters.  The FWPCA provides the authority to 14 establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and subsurface waters (including 15 groundwater), develop waste treatment management plans and practices, and issue permits for 16 discharges (Section 402) and for dredged or fill material (Section 404).  A National Pollutant Discharge 17 Elimination System (NPDES) or the state equivalent (i.e., Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 18 [TPDES]) permit under Section 402 of the CWA is required for discharges into navigable waters; a 19 Section 404 permit is required for the placement of dredged or fill material in navigable waters; and a 20 Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is required for obstruction or alteration of 21 navigable waters.  "Navigable waters" have been very broadly defined in U.S. Environmental Protection 22 Agency (USEPA) regulations (40 CFR 230) and encompass most bodies of water (including wetlands) 23 and their tributaries.  The USEPA is charged with the overall responsibility for Section 402 permits; the 24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has responsibility for Section 404 permits; and the U.S. Coast 25 Guard has responsibility for Section 10 permits. 26 27 A 100-year flood (intermediate regional flood) is defined as a flood level that occurs with an average 28 frequency of once in 100 years at a designated location, although it may occur any year, even two years 29 in a row.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for implementation and 30 management of the National Flood Insurance Program under 44 CFR; however, local government is 31 responsible for administration of the floodplain within its respective borders.  FEMA regulates the impact 32 of vertical development on surface water elevation and flood limits within the floodplain. 33 34 Implementation of the proposed action through selection of one of the alternatives could result in the 35 disturbance of localized surface water features and/or floodplains.  Water features could receive silt from 36 or have drainage patterns affected by ground-disturbing activities.  Localized water features could also 37 contain federally or state-listed protected species or support important riparian habitat.  Additional impacts 38 could result from increased stormwater flow resulting from increased impervious surfaces or the 39 contribution of additional impervious surfaces within the micro-watershed.  Potential effects to surface 40 waters and floodplains will be quantified in this EA by acreage and/or linear distance affected, occurrence 41 within the 100-year or 500-year floodplain, and estimated increase in stormwater flows.   42
43 1.3.1.5 Land Use and Zoning44 45 As with other resources, land is not available in unlimited quantities.  Because of this, land use must be 46 properly planned and controlled.  The CEQ regulations recognize this need for the rational management 47 of land resources and have provided for a specific consideration of the relationship of a changed pattern 48 in land uses, which requires knowledge and understanding of existing and projected land capabilities and 49 land use patterns.  Land use patterns are natural or imposed configurations resulting from spatial 50 arrangement of the different uses of land at a particular time.  Land use patterns typically evolve as a 51 result of: (1) changing economic considerations inherent in the concept of highest and best use of land, 52 (2) imposing legal restrictions (zoning) on the uses of land, and (3) changing (zoning variances) existing 53 legal restrictions.  The critical consideration is the extent to which any changes in land use patterns 54 resulting from implementation of an action are compatible with existing adjacent uses and are in 55 conformity with approved or proposed land use plans.  Land use describes the activities that take place in 1 a particular area and generally refers to human modification of land, often for residential or economic 2 purposes.  It also refers to use of land for preservation or protection of natural resources.  It is important 3 as a means to determine if there is sufficient area for proposed activities and to identify any potential 4 conflicts with local land use plans. 5
6 1.3.1.6 Traffic, Transportation, and Parking7 8 The effects of an increase in vehicles or increased traffic in a given area as well as a need for increased 9 parking can have an effect on existing homes and/or businesses in a particular area as well as those that 10 visit the area and those that may work at or frequent a proposed use.  It is important that the local road 11 network (existing or planned) can handle the potential added capacity and that appropriate measures are 12 taken to account for vehicle parking.  Construction of a new facility can also result in traffic delays and/or 13 traffic reroutes in the area which can also result in impacts.  Potential traffic impacts are documented in 14 this EA based on the ability of the existing or planned transportation network to support an increase in 15 vehicles and the number or amount of parking available for the proposed use. 16
17 1.3.1.7 Air Quality 18 19 The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401-7671q), as amended, provides the framework for federal, state, 20 tribal, and local rules and regulations to protect air quality.  The CAA gives the USEPA the responsibility 21 to establish the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 50) 22 that set safe concentration levels for six criteria pollutants: particulate matter measuring less than 10 23 microns in diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOX), ozone 24 (O3), and lead (Pb). Primary NAAQS are established to protect public health, and secondary standards 25 provide protection for the public welfare, which includes wildlife, climate, transportation, and economic 26 values (Table 1-1). Additionally, the USEPA also has responsibility for ensuring that air quality standards 27 are met to control pollutant emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicles) and stationary (i.e., factories) sources.   28 29 The NAAQS represent the maximum levels of background pollutants that are considered safe, with an 30 adequate margin of safety to protect public health and welfare.  Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24-hour 31 periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects, while long-term 32 standards (annual averages) have been established for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. 33 Each state has the authority to adopt standards stricter than those established under the federal program; 34 however, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) accepts the federal standards for the 35 San Antonio metropolitan area.   36 37 Areas that violate NAAQS are designated as nonattainment areas, and areas that comply with air quality 38 standards are designated attainment areas for the relevant pollutants.  Attainment/maintenance areas are 39 areas that have previously been designated nonattainment, and have subsequently been redesignated to 40 attainment, for a probationary period, due to complying with the NAAQS.  Attainment/maintenance status 41 is achieved through the development and implementation of maintenance plans for criteria pollutants of 42 interest.  The CAA contains the legislation that mandates the general conformity rule to ensure that 43 federal actions in nonattainment and attainment/maintenance areas do not interfere with a states timely 44 attainment of the NAAQS.  The CAA also requires that federal agencies demonstrate that their actions 45 conducted in nonattainment and attainment/maintenance areas conform to the purposes of the State 46 Implementation Plan (SIP). 47 48 The general conformity rule divides the air conformity process into two distinct areas: applicability analysis 49 and conformity determination.  The applicability analysis process requires federal agencies to determine if 50 their proposed action(s) would increase emissions of criteria pollutants above the threshold levels (40 51 CFR 93.153).  These threshold rates vary depending on severity of nonattainment and geographic 52 location (Table 1-2 and 1-3).  De minimis emissions are total direct and indirect emissions of a criteria 53 pollutant that are caused by a federal action in a nonattainment or attainment/maintenance area in less 54 than these threshold rates. 55
 Criteria Pollutants/NAA Status   TPY
O3 (VOCs or NOx)
Serious NAAs  50
Severe NAAs  25
Extreme NAAs  10
Other O3 NAAs outside an O3 transport region  100
Marginal and moderate NAAs inside an O3 transport region  50
VOC  100
CO
All NAAs  100
 SO2 or NOx
All NAAs  100
 PM10
Moderate NAAs  100
Serious NAAs  70
Pb
All NAAs  25
 Air Pollutant  Averaging Time    NAAQS
1 Primary  2 Secondary
CO  1-hour 8-hour  35 ppm 9 ppm  None None
 NOX  Annual  0.053 ppm  0.053 ppm
 SO2  3-hour 24-hour Annual   - 0.14 ppm  0.03 ppm   0.50 ppm  - -
 PM10  24-hour    150 g/m3    150 g/m3
 PM2.5   Annual  24-hour    15.0 g/m3  35 g/m3    15.0 g/m3  35 g/m3
 O3   1-hour3 8-hour  0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm  0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm
Pb  Quarterly average  1.5 g/m3   1.5 g/m3
Table 1-1. National Ambient Air Quality  Standards.
2 1 - Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, 3 children, and the elderly. 4 2 - Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to 5 animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 6 3 - The ozone 1-hour standard applies only to designated nonattainment areas. 7 ppm parts per million 8 g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 9 Source:  USEPA 2007  10  11 Table 1-2. Applicability Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants in Nonattainment Areas.
12 NAA nonattainment areas 13 TPY tons per year 14 VOC volatile organic compound15 Source: USEPA 2007 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Criteria Pollutants  TPY
 O3 (NOx, SO2 or NO2)
All maintenance areas  100
 O3 (VOCs)
Maintenance areas inside an O3 transport region  50
Maintenance areas outside an O3 transport region  100
 CO
All maintenance areas  100
 PM10
All maintenance areas  100
 Pb
All maintenance areas  25
Table 1-3. Applicability Thresholds for Attainment/Maintenance Areas.
2 TPY tons per year 3 VOC volatile organic compounds4 Source: 40 CFR 93.153 5 6 An action is subject to the general conformity rule if the emissions are deemed regionally significant, even 7 if the emissions are de minimis. Regionally significant emissions are defined as the total direct and 8 indirect emissions of a federal action for any criteria pollutant that represents 10 percent or more of a 9 nonattainment or maintenance area's emission inventory for that pollutant.  Implementing the proposed 10 action through one of the alternatives could impact local and regional air quality.  Potential effects to air 11 quality will be established in this EA by determining if on-site emissions increase criteria pollutants above 12 de minimis levels. 13
14 1.3.1.8 Noise 15 16 Acoustical noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is 17 intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive.  Human response to noise varies according 18 to the type and characteristics of the noise sources, distance between source and receiver, receiver 19 sensitivity, and time of day.  Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations, which 20 travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear.  The ear senses these vibrations 21 as changes in pressure, and as a result sound levels are most commonly referred to as sound pressure 22 levels. 23 24 Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels.  The term decibel (dB) implies a logarithmic ratio of the 25 measured pressure to a reference pressure.  This reference pressure refers to a pressure that is just 26 barely detectable by the human ear.  The human ear responds differently to sounds at different 27 frequencies.  This is demonstrated by the fact that we hear higher pitched sounds more easily than lower 28 ones of the same magnitudes.  To compensate for the different "loudness" levels as perceived by 29 humans, a standard weighting curve is applied to measured sound levels.  This weighting curve 30 represents the human ears sensitivity and is labeled "A" weighting.  The units of magnitude of the sound 31 level are therefore written as dBA ("A" weighted decibels).  All sound levels analyzed in this EA are A32 weighted unless otherwise noted. 33 34  Day-Night Average Sound Level.  In this EA, the day-night average sound level (DNL) is used 35 to describe noise.  The DNL is a cumulative metric that accounts for the total sound energy 36 occurring over a 24-hour period, with nighttime noise weighted more heavily to reflect community 37 sensitivity to noise during nighttime hours.  Noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally 38 unacceptable for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals.  Studies 39 of community annoyance to numerous types of environmental noise show that DNL correlates 40 well with percentages of groups of persons highly annoyed (Fidell et al. 1991).41 42  Time Averaged Sound Level.  This metric represents a continuous sound level having the same 43 acoustic energy and time interval as the actual fluctuating sound event. 44
1  Maximum Sound Level.  The highest A-weighted sound level measured during a single event in 2 which the sound level changes value as time goes on (e.g., an aircraft overflight) is called the 3 maximum A-weighted sound level or maximum sound level (Lmax).4 5  Speech Interference.  Speech interference associated with construction noise is a cause of 6 annoyance to individuals.  The disruption of routine activities such as listening or telephone use 7 gives rise to frustration and irritation.  The quality of speech communication is also important in 8 classrooms, offices, and industrial settings and can cause fatigue and vocal strain to those who 9 attempt to communicate over the noise. Research has shown that the use of the sound exposure 10 level (SEL) metric will measure speech interference successfully and that an SEL exceeding 65 11 dBA will begin to interfere with speech communication. 12 13  Noise Annoyance. Noise annoyance is defined by the USEPA (1974) as any negative 14 subjective reaction on the part of an individual or group.  As noted in the discussion of DNL 15 above, community annoyance is best measured by that metric.  Because the USEPA (1974) 16 Levels Document identified DNL 55 dBA as requisite to protect public health and welfare with 17 an adequate margin of safety, it is commonly assumed that 55 dBA should be adopted as a 18 criterion for community noise analysis.  From a noise exposure perspective, that would be an 19 ideal selection.  However, financial and technical resources are generally not available to achieve 20 that goal. Most agencies have identified DNL 65 dBA as a criterion which protects those most 21 impacted by noise and which can often be achieved on a practical basis (Federal Interagency 22 Committee on Noise [FICON] 1992).  Although DNL 65 dBA is widely used as a benchmark for 23 evaluating potential significant noise impact, and is often an acceptable compromise, it is not a 24 statutory limit and it is appropriate to consider other thresholds for particular cases. 25 26  Hearing Loss.  Noise-induced hearing loss is probably the best defined of the potential effects of 27 human exposure to excessive noise.  Federal workplace standards for protection from hearing 28 loss allow a time-average level of 90 dBA over an 8-hour work period, or 85 dBA averaged over a 29 16-hour period.  Even the most protective criterion suggests a time-average sound level of 70 30 dBA over a 24-hour period (USEPA 1974). Since it is unlikely that receivers will remain exposed 31 to this level for 24 hours per day for extended periods, there is little possibility of hearing loss 32 below DNL 75 dBA. 33 34 The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) directs federal agencies to comply with applicable federal, 35 state, interstate, and local noise control regulations.  In 1974, the USEPA provided information on 36 negative effects of noise and identified indoor and outdoor noise limits that protect public health and 37 welfare. In addition, sound quality criteria promulgated by the USEPA and the U.S. Department of 38 Housing and Urban Development have identified noise levels to protect public health and welfare with an 39 adequate margin of safety.  These levels are considered acceptable guidelines for assessing noise 40 conditions in an environmental setting.  Average acceptable day-night sound pressure levels fall in a 41 range between 50 dBA in quiet suburban areas and 70 dBA in very noisy urban areas (USEPA 1974). 42 Table 1-4 lists some common sound levels associated with everyday activities and devices. 43 44 Implementing the proposed action through the selection of one of the alternatives could increase the 45 levels of noise within the immediate project area. Potential effects will be quantified in this EA by 46 determining if on-site noise levels increase long-term noise levels above acceptable standards for the 47 specific land use type. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
 Outdoor   dBA  Indoor
Snowmobile  100  SubwayT       rain
Tractor  90  GarbageDisposal
 Noisy Restaurant      Blender
Downtown (Large City)  80  Ringing Telephone
Freeway Traffic  70  TV Audio
Power Lawn Mower
Normal Conversation  60  Sewing Machine
Rainfall  50  Refrigerator
Quiet Residential Area  40  Library
Table 1-4. Common Sound Levels.
2 dBA - "A" weighted decibels
3 Source: League for the Hard of Hearing 2002
4
5 1.3.1.9 Cultural and Historic Resources 6 7 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq., as amended), the 8 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974 (16 USC 469a et seq.), and the 9 Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 USC 470aa-470ll) are designed to ensure 10 adequate consideration of the values of historic properties in carrying out federal activities and to attempt 11 to identify and mitigate impacts to significant historic properties.  The NHPA is the principal authority used 12 to protect historic properties; federal agencies must determine the effect of their actions on cultural 13 resources and take certain steps to ensure that these resources are located, identified, evaluated, and 14 protected.  The 36 CFR 800 defines the responsibilities of the state, the federal government, and the 15 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in protecting historic properties identified in a project 16 area. The 36 CFR 60 establishes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and defines the 17 criteria for evaluating eligibility of cultural resources for listing on the NRHP.  The ARPA of 1979 protects 18 archeological resources on federal lands.  Unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration, or 19 defacement of archeological resources on public lands is prohibited.  In this EA, historic properties refer 20 to properties eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 21 22 Legal mandates pertaining to Native American cultural resources and religious freedom include the 23 NHPA, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et 24 seq., 43 CFR 10), NEPA, ARPA, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, as amended 25 (42 USC 1996-1996a), and EO 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites, May 1996). 26 27 Cultural resources are nonrenewable resources whose value may be diminished by physical 28 disturbances.  These resources include buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, and archeological 29 sites, as well as places of importance to a culture or community for reasons of history, religion, or science.  30 The archeological sites may include both prehistoric and historic sites, e.g., campsites, resource use or 31 acquisition areas, house sites, and trash deposits that may exist.  An impact would be significant to 32 cultural and/or archeological resources if project activities result in: 33 34  physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 35 36  alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, 37 hazardous material reduction, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with 38 the Secretary of the Interiors standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR 68) and 39 applicable guidelines; 40 41  removal of the property from its historic location; 42
1  change of the character of the propertys use or of physical features within the propertys setting 2 that contribute to its historic significance; 3 4  introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the propertys 5 significant historic features; 6 7  neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration 8 are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or 9 Native Hawaiian organization; and 10 11  transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without adequate and 12 legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the propertys 13 historic significance. 14 15 Potential effects to cultural and historic resources will be quantified in this EA based on the number of 16 sites or site locales affected that are eligible, or potentially eligible, for listing on the NRHP or have been 17 listed on the NRHP. 18
19 1.3.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 20 21 CEQ regulations (1501.7) state that the lead agency shall identify and eliminate from detailed study the 22 issues which are not important or which have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the 23 discussion of these issues in the document to a brief presentation of why they would not have a dramatic 24 effect on the human environment.  In accordance with 1501.7, issues eliminated from detailed study 25 include: 26
27 1.3.2.1 Soils 28 29 Given the highly urbanized environment comprising and surrounding the three proposed sites and the 30 extent of previous soil disturbance due to continuous development over the years, there is little probability 31 that any original soil characteristics remain.  The disturbed nature of the soils and the urban environment 32 preclude designation of any prime farmland soils within the project area.  Ground-disturbing activities 33 would not be occurring on soils that would qualify under the Federal Register definition of prime 34 farmlands, and therefore no adverse impacts to this resource would occur.  As, such this resource area 35 has been eliminated from detailed study in this EA. 36
37 1.3.2.2 Vegetation and Wildlife38 39 Biological resources play an integral role in the natural environment.  The CEQ (1993) recognizes that 40 biological resources, and from them biodiversity, are ...not a series of unconnected elements, and that 41 the richness of the mix of elements and the connections between those elements are what sustains the 42 system as a whole.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (PL 93-205), as amended, was enacted 43 to provide a program of preservation for endangered and/or threatened species and to provide protection 44 for ecosystems upon which these species depend for their survival.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 45 (USFWS) is responsible for implementing the ESA within the United States and its territories.  The 46 USFWS and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) maintain protected species lists 47 (endangered, threatened, proposed candidate, or species of concern) for species that occur or could 48 potentially occur within Bexar County.  If protected species occur within the area, implementing the 49 proposed action through the selection of one of the alternatives could affect these species and their 50 habitat. 51 52 The three highly developed sites under consideration for the new Federal Courthouse contain limited 53 vegetation in the form of primarily ornamental landscaping.  A row of ornamental trees skirts the northern 54 and western edges of the Police Headquarters Site and several additional trees are dispersed throughout 55 the parking lot.  Ornamental grasses and trees border the building as well.  Nearly one third of the River 1 Site consist of ornamental, maintained landscape, whereas the Hemisfair Site has a narrow strip of 2 grassy area and a row of shrubs along the southwestern border and is otherwise paved. 3 4 A natural climax community is one that has reached its ecological peak in biodiversity.  The potential 5 impacts associated with disturbances to a climax community can be more significant due to the required 6 time for recovery. All three sites under consideration are within the Edwards Plateau ecological region of 7 Texas (Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs 1978).  An examination of literature and the existing 8 conditions at the three sites indicated that the vegetation communities present were not climax communities. 9 McMahan et al. (1984) provided a more detailed vegetation map of Texas and mapped the area that
10 contains the three sites under consideration as urban.  Therefore, it is not expected that the immediate 11 surrounding area would have an abundance of vegetation.  Although not a true vegetational community, 12 urban areas contain mixed patches (i.e., lawns, gardens, etc.) of introduced cultivars and native 13 vegetation. On-site observations indicated only plant species that normally occur in disturbed urban 14 areas and landscaped vegetation.  Specifically, some landscape grasses, bushes, and trees are present; 15 but due to the urban nature of the area, no natural vegetation communities exist.  This urban community 16 is not ecologically important, but it does provide suitable habitat to some common local wildlife species. 17 (McMahan et al. 1984). 18 19 Wildlife that potentially occur within the area would be restricted to urban-dwelling vertebrates such as 20 rodents, pigeons, sparrows, doves, and various other common birds, as well as domesticated animals. 21 There are no significant or important habitats or species present at any of the three sites under 22 consideration. 23 24 According to the USFWS, 17 species protected under the ESA potentially occur in Bexar County. 25 Additionally, the TPWD has 20 species listed as state threatened or endangered (Table 1-5).  Some of 26 these species are listed by both the USFWS and the TPWD.  Due to the disturbed nature of the three 27 sites under consideration, no threatened or endangered species would be expected to occur.  Although28 no species-specific surveys were performed during field reconnaissance at the three sites, no protected 29 species were observed and the potential for protected species to utilize any of the sites is considered 30 extremely low. As such, this issue has been eliminated from detailed study. 31 32 Table 1-5. State and Federally Protected Species Occurring or 33 Potentially Occurring in Bexar County, Texas.
Common Name (Scientific Name)  Federal Status  State Status  General Habitat Description  Habitat Potentially Present?  Known Occurrence?
REPTILES
Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais)  -- T  Texas, south of the Guadalupe River and Balcones Escarpment; thornbush-chaparral woodlands of south Texas, in particular dense riparian corridors; can do well in suburban and irrigated croplands if not molested or indirectly poisoned; requires moist microhabitats, such as rodent burrows, for shelter  No  No
Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)  -- T  Open, arid and semiarid regions with sparse vegetation, including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby trees; soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under rock when inactive; breeds March-September  No  No
Texas Tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri)  -- T  Open brush with a grass understory is preferred; open grass and bare ground are avoided; when inactive occupies shallow depressions at base of bush or cactus, sometimes in underground burrows or under objects; longevity greater than 50 years; active March-November; breeds April-November  No  No
Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)  -- T  Swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland; limestone bluffs, sandy soil or black clay; prefers dense ground cover, i.e. grapevines or palmetto  No  No
1 Table 1-5 (contd.).  State and Federally Protected Species Occurring or 2 Potentially Occurring in Bexar County, Texas.
Common Name (Scientific Name)  Federal Status  State Status  General Habitat Description  Habitat Potentially Present?  Known Occurrence?
BIRDS
American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)  DL  E  Year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.  No  No
Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius)  DL  T  Migrant throughout state from subspecies far northern breeding range, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.  No  No
Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapilla)  E  E  Oak-juniper woodlands with distinctive patchy, two-layered aspect; shrub and tree layer with open, grassy spaces; requires foliage reaching to ground level for nesting cover; return to same territory, or one nearby, year after year; deciduous and broad-leaved shrubs and trees provide insects for feeding; species composition less important than presence of adequate broad-leaved shrubs, foliage to ground level, and required structure; nests mid-April-late summer  No  No
Golden-cheeked Warbler  (Dendroica chrysoparia)  E  E  Juniper-oak woodlands; dependent on Ashe juniper (Juniperus asheii) for long fine bark strips, only available from mature trees, used in nest construction; nests placed in various trees other than Ashe juniper; only a few mature junipers or nearby cedar breaks can provide the necessary nest material; forage for insects in broad-leaved trees and shrubs; nests late March-early summer  No  No
Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos)  LE  E  Subspecies is listed only when inland (more than 50 miles from coastline); nests along sand and gravel bars  No  No
White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)  -- T  Prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but can be found in brackish and saltwater habitats  No  No
Whooping Crane (Grus americana)  -- E  Potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast; winters in  coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun, and Refugio counties  No  No
Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)  -- T  Forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures, or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including saltwater; usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds (i.e., active heronries); breeds in Mexico and birds move into Gulf States in search of mudflats and other wetlands, even those associated with forested areas; formerly nested in Texas, but no breeding records since 1960  No  No
3 4 5 6
1-14
1 Table 1-5 (contd.).  State and Federally Protected Species Occurring or 2 Potentially Occurring in Bexar County, Texas.
Habitat
Common Name (Scientific Name)  Federal Status  State Status  General Habitat Description  Potentially Present?  Known Occurrence?
BIRDS
Zone-tailed Hawk  (Buteo albonotatus)  -- T  Arid open country, including open deciduous or pine-oak woodland, mesa, or mountain country, often near watercourses, and wooded canyons and tree-lined rivers along middle slopes of desert mountains; nests in various habitats and sites, ranging from small trees in lower desert, giant cottonwoods in riparian areas, to mature conifers in high mountain regions  No  No
MAMMALS
Black Bear (Ursus americanus)  T/SA; NL  T  Within historical range of Louisiana black bear in eastern Texas, inhabits bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of undeveloped forested areas; in remainder of Texas, inhabits desert lowlands and high elevation forests and woodlands; dens in tree hollows, rock piles, cliff overhangs, caves, or under brush piles  No  No
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)  E  E  Extirpated; formerly known throughout the western two-thirds of the state in forests, brushlands, or grasslands  No  No
Red Wolf (Canis rufus)  E  E  Extirpated; formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas, as well as coastal prairies  No  No
AMPHIBIANS
Cascade Caverns Salamander (Eurycea latitans complex)  -- T  Endemic; subaquatic; springs and caves in Medina River, Guadalupe River, and Cipolo Creek watersheds within Edwards Aquifer  No  No
Comal Blind Salamander (Eurycea tridentifera)  -- T  Endemic; semi-troglobitic; found in springs and waters of caves in Bexar and Comal counties  No  No
ARACHNIDS
Bracken Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii)  E  Small, eyeless, or essentially eyeless spider; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)  E  Small eyeless harvestman; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Circurina vespera)  E  Small, eyeless, or essentially eyeless spider; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps)  E  -- Small, eyeless, or essentially eyeless spider; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Madla Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla)  E  -- Small, eyeless, or essentially eyeless spider; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)  E  -- Small, eyeless spider; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
INSECTS
Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)  E  -- Small, eyeless mold beetle; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County.  No  No
Ground Beetle  (Rhadine exilis)  E  -- Small, essentially eyeless ground beetle; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
Ground Beetle  (Rhadine infernalis)  E  -- Small, essentially eyeless ground beetle; karst features in north and northwest Bexar County  No  No
3 4 5
1-15
1 Table 1-5 (contd.).  State and Federally Protected Species Occurring or 2 Potentially Occurring in Bexar County, Texas.
Common Name (Scientific Name)  Federal Status  State Status  General Habitat Description  Habitat Potentially Present?  Known Occurrence?
FISHES
Toothless Blindcat (Trogloglanis pattersoni)  -- T  Troglobitic, blind catfish endemic to the San Antonio pool of the Edwards Aquifer  No  No
Widemouth Blindcat (Satan eurystomus)  -- T  Troglobitic, blind catfish endemic to the San Antonio pool of the Edwards Aquifer  No  No
3 E - Endangered
4 DL - De-listed
5 PT - Federally proposed endangered/threatened
6 T - Threatened
7 --- Rare, but with no regulatory listing status
8 Source: TPWD 2007; USFWS 2007
9
10 1.3.2.3 Asbestos 11 12 The USEPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulate asbestos13 containing materials (ACM) and ACM abatement.  The State of Texas also has regulations pertaining to 14 ACM abatement.  Emissions of asbestos fibers into the ambient air are regulated in accordance with 15 Section 112 of the CAA, which established the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 16 Pollutants (NESHAP). The NESHAP addresses the demolition or renovation of buildings containing 17 ACM. TSCA Title II provides statutory framework for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, which 18 applies only to schools.  The Texas Department of Health administers the states asbestos abatement 19 regulation.  These regulations cover demolition activities and are more stringent than the NESHAP 20 program.  The current GSA practice is to manage or abate ACM in active facilities and abate ACM per 21 regulatory requirements prior to facility demolition. Abatement of ACMs occurs when there is a potential 22 for asbestos fiber releases that would affect the environment or human health.  This issue has been 23 eliminated from detailed study because the sites under consideration are either vacant (no current 24 structures) or because demolition (or relocation if necessary) activities (which would include asbestos 25 surveys, remediation activities, disposal, etc.) would be done by the current owner/offeror as part of the 26 property transaction. 27
28 1.3.2.4 Lead-Based Paint 29 30 Lead is a heavy, ductile metal that is commonly found in organic compounds, oxides, and salts, or as 31 metal. Human exposure to lead has been determined to be an adverse health risk by agencies such as 32 OSHA and the USEPA. Sources of exposures to lead are through paint, dust, and soil.  Blood lead levels 33 in excess of 30 micrograms per deciliter are of concern in adults and can cause various ailments. 34 35 Waste containing levels of lead exceeding the total threshold limit concentration of 1,300 milligrams per 36 kilogram (mg/kg) or the soluble threshold limit concentration of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are defined 37 as hazardous under 40 CFR 261 and applicable state regulations.  If a waste is classified as hazardous, 38 disposal must take place in accordance with USEPA and state hazardous waste rules.  OSHA has 39 established a general industry airborne permissible exposure limit (PEL) standard of 50 micrograms per 40 cubic meter (g/m3) for factory workers and a more lenient 200 g/m3 for construction workers. 41 42 In 1973, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) established a maximum lead content in paint 43 of 0.5 percent by weight in a dry film of paint newly applied.  In 1978, the CPSC lowered the allowable 44 lead level in paint to 0.06 percent. In September 1989, the USEPA established a cleanup criterion for 45 lead in soil of 500 to 1,000 parts per million total lead when the possibility of child contact exists. 46 Currently, the USEPA has specific guidelines for the cleanup of lead in soils based on the characteristics 47 of individual sites. 48
1 To ensure any threat to human health and the environment from LBP has been identified, the Residential 2 Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X), effective January 1, 1995, requires that a LBP survey 3 of high-priority facilities be conducted.  High priority facilities consist of facilities or portions of facilities 4 frequented by children under the age of seven, including military family housing, transient lodging 5 facilities, day care centers, elementary schools, and playgrounds.  The TSCA Title IV, Lead Exposure 6 Reduction, directs federal agencies to conduct a comprehensive program to promote safe, effective, 7 and affordable monitoring, detection, and abatement of lead-based paint and other lead exposure 8 hazards. Further, any federal agency having jurisdiction over a property or facility must comply with all 9 federal, state, interstate, and local requirements concerning LBP.  This issue has been eliminated from 10 detailed study because the sites under consideration are either vacant (no current structures) or because 11 demolition (or relocation if necessary) activities (which would include lead-based paint surveys, 12 remediation activities, disposal, etc.) would be done by the current owner/offeror as part of the property 13 transaction. 14
15 1.3.2.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 16 17 The NEPA regulations identify aesthetics as one of the components of the environment to be considered 18 in evaluating the effects of a proposed action.  Aesthetics is the science or philosophy concerned with the 19 quality of visual experience.  Traditionally, visual design theory has followed the lead of the fine arts by 20 looking at an individual proposed project as a self-contained object, apart from its surroundings.  This can 21 be termed internal aesthetics and in and of itself, is essential to a high-quality visual environment.  A 22 second level of aesthetics considers the visual relationships between a proposed project and specific 23 elements of its surroundings.  These considerations can be termed relational aesthetics. At the third 24 and broadest level is environmental aesthetics.  Here the aesthetics of the total affected environment 25 are examined.  In the past, much more attention has been given to the first level of aesthetics than to the 26 second and third levels.  The design of the new Federal Courthouse would be consistent with the 27 prevailing City of San Antonio Unified Development Code (Ordinance Number 2007-04-12-0409) and 28 Development Standards so that the overall look and feel of the structure would complement the area. 29 As such, this issue has been eliminated from detailed study.
1 SECTION 2.0
2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3 4 This section of the EA describes the alternatives developed by GSA to implement the proposed action 5 described in Section 1.0.  This section also describes the process used to objectively identify the 6 reasonable alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis, as well as the reasoning for elimination of 7 several alternatives.  A comparative summary of the alternatives and how they do or do not meet the 8 selection guidelines identified early in the process is also included. 9
10 2.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS 11 12 The purpose and need for the proposed action has been examined and documented in Section 1.2.  The 13 following analysis of alternatives was prepared to determine which alternative(s) best satisfies the 14 purpose and need statement.  Alternatives that did not fully satisfy the purpose and need were not carried 15 forward for detailed analysis in this EA.  The general location of the alternatives analyzed (with the 16 exception of the no action alternative) are shown in Figure 2-1 and include: 17 18  No Action  19 20  Construction and Operation of a New Facility at the River Site  21 22  Construction and Operation of a New Facility at the Hemisfair Site 2  23 24  Construction and Operation of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  25 26 The alternatives evaluation utilized a two-tiered evaluation formulated to concentrate on the purpose and 27 need for the proposed action  to meet the short-term occupancy needs and the long-term design needs 28 of the U.S. Federal Courts, Western District of Texas, in San Antonio, Texas.  As the alternative 29 evaluation proceeded through each tier, the alternatives that did not satisfy all of the criteria were 30 eliminated from further consideration.  Those alternatives that did fully satisfy the criteria continued to be 31 subject to the next set of tier criteria.  The following briefly describes the specific evaluation criteria used 32 at each of the two tiers. 33 34  Tier 1 evaluated whether or not the various alternatives would fully meet the purpose and need 35 selection guidelines.36 37  Tier 2 evaluated whether or not the various alternatives would result in adverse environmental 38 impacts. 39 40 The second tier of the alternatives evaluation process looked at three action alternatives and the no 41 action alternative because none of the other alternatives fully satisfied all of the Tier 1 criteria (i.e., the 42 purpose and need for the action).  Those alternatives eliminated from detailed study are briefly discussed 43 in the following section as their elimination relates to the Tier 1 criteria. 44
45 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 46 47 As part of the on-going planning for the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts in San Antonio, a multitude of 48 options have been considered by the GSA.  These alternatives can be grouped into three categories and 49 are discussed in more detail in the following sections: 50 51  Renovation of the Existing Courthouse 52  Renovation and Use of Another Facility/Structure 53  Lease space 54  New Construction
Sky view of alternative site locations for the new Federal Courthouse.
Highlighting the tree possible locations: Police Headquarters Site, River Site, and Hemisfair Site.
3
4 Figure 2-1. Alternative Site Locations.
5
6 2.2.1 Renovation of the Existing Courthouse 7 8 Under this alternative, the GSA would renovate the existing courthouse in an effort to meet the projected 9 needs of the U.S. Federal Courts in San Antonio.  This alternative was not considered feasible because
10 renovation of the existing courthouse would not provide the space necessary to satisfy the short- and 11 long-term occupancy needs of the U.S. Federal Courts (see Section 1.2).  Additionally, renovation is cost 12 prohibitive and would result in a disruption of court operations and services which would impact the court 13 system and the community.  As a result, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 14
15 2.2.2 Renovation and Use of Another Facility/Structure 16 17 Under this alternative, the GSA would locate another existing facility/structure and renovate it in an effort 18 to meet the projected needs of the U.S. Federal Courts in San Antonio.  This alternative was not 19 considered feasible because renovation would be cost prohibitive and would likely result in security 20 issues that could not be adequately addressed with an existing structure (e.g., building location on the 21 site, setback, secured parking, etc.). As a result, this alternative was eliminated from further 22 consideration. 23
24 2.2.3 Lease Space 25 26 Under this alternative, the GSA would lease space in an effort to meet the projected needs of the U.S. 27 Federal Courts in San Antonio. This alternative was not considered feasible because the costs 28 associated with a leased facility are substantially higher than those associated with a building owned by
1 the GSA. It was also concluded that this alternative would likely result in security issues that could not be 2 adequately addressed.  As a result, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 3
4 2.2.4 New Construction 5 6 Under this alternative, the GSA would construct new facilities in an effort to meet the projected needs of 7 the U.S. Federal Courts in San Antonio.  As part of the planning process, several potential locations for a 8 new courthouse in San Antonio were considered and eliminated from consideration because they did not 9 fully satisfy the purpose and need guidelines identified earlier.  These sites included: 10 11  City Site (near City Hall)12  K-Mart Site 13  Television Site 14  Existing Courthouse Site 15  Existing Government Parking Site 16  Motor Bank Site 17  Annex Jail Site 18  Fox Tech Site 19  Sunset Site 20  San Antonio ISD Site 21  Non-CBD Site 1 22  Non-CBD Site 2 23  San Antonio Housing Authority Site 24  Hemisfair Site 1 25  Hemisfair Site 3 26
27 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED STUDY 28 29 As mentioned earlier, only three action alternatives fully satisfied all of the Tier 1 guidelines and have 30 therefore been carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA.  The no action alternative does not satisfy 31 the Tier 1 guidelines; however, pursuant to NEPA, the no action alternative has been carried forward as 32 the baseline to which potential impacts of the alternative can be measured. 33
34 2.3.1 No Action Alternative 35 36 Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal 37 Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the adjacent 38 Federal Building.  This alternative would not satisfy all the Tier 1 guidelines.  More specifically, this 39 alternative: 40 41 (1) Would not provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the 42 community.  To meet the short-term occupancy needs, the space/facility must provide eight 43 district courtrooms and chambers (5 district and 3 senior district), five magistrate courtrooms and 44 chambers, and one Court of Appeals resident changers.  Additionally, this alternative would not 45 satisfy the long-term design needs of the U.S. Federal Courts.   46 47 (2) Would not provide a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria. The space/facility48 must comply with the U.S. Courts Design Guide (USCDG) as well as the provisions of the 49 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Public Law [PL] 101-336, 1990), the Uniform Federal 50 Accessibility Standards, fire safety standards, and the energy conservation requirements of GSA 51 PBS/Q-100.52
1 (3) Would not provide a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency between courts and court2 related agencies. The space/facility must provide for the consolidation of all the District Court, 3 U.S. Marshals Service, and other related operations in one location. 4 5 (4) Would not provide a space/facility solution that positively influences development/redevelopment 6 in the San Antonio CBD and is supported by the City of San Antonio.  GSA is committed to 7 promoting healthy communities and neighborhoods throughout the United States, especially in 8 revitalizing downtown urban areas.  GSA property management decisions try to accommodate 9 Executive Order (EO) 13006 (Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our Nations 10 Central Cities, May 1996) and EO 12072 (Federal Space Management, August 1978), both 11 extolling the virtues of a federal presence in revitalizing and restoring historically important 12 downtown areas and urban centers. 13
14 2.3.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site
15
16 Under this alternative, a new Federal Courthouse would be constructed at the River Site (Figure 2-2).
17 This alternative fully satisfies all Tier 1 guidelines and was therefore carried forward for detailed study in
 18 this EA.  More specifically, this alternative would:
19
20 (1) Provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the community.
21 (2) Provide a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria.
22 (3) Provide a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency between courts and court-related
23 agencies.
24 (4) Provide a space/facility solution that positively influences development/redevelopment in the
25 San Antonio CBD and is supported by the City of San Antonio.
26 (5) Provide the required space/facility, while minimizing disruption of current federal activities.
27 (6) Provide a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment.
28 (7) Provide a space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.
29 (8) Provide a space/facility solution where a majority of the overall site is available for acquisition
30 by the GSA.
31
32 2.3.2.1 Construction Activities
33
34 Under this alternative, the GSA would construct a new Federal Courthouse at the River Site
 35 (approximately 5.0 acres in size).  The facility would be a planned six stories in height and would be
36 approximately 326,000 gross square feet in size including underground parking.  Development of the
37 facility would also include all necessary exterior support infrastructure (e.g., entry drives, walkways,
38 signage, parking, fencing, landscaping, etc.).  As part of development of the site, Aubrey Street from East
39 Durango Boulevard to Old Guibeau Street would be permanently closed (removed).  Based on the long40 term needs of the courts, Dwyer Avenue from East Durango Boulevard to Old Guibeau Street would
 41 eventually be permanently closed (removed).  Design of the facility would be expected to be completed
42 within Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 with construction beginning in FY 2011 and eventual completion estimated
 43 by FY 2012.  As part of this alternative, the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse and the
44 Spears Training Center would be reported as excess when the new courthouse is occupied.
45
46 The River Site contains two historic-age architectural properties that may be eligible for nomination to the
47 NRHP. There are also several potentially eligible structures within the half-block APE and a potential for
48 significant archeological deposits at the site.  As a result, the GSA would consult with the SHPO and
 49 interested parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the potential effects to
50 historic properties as a result of this undertaking. Due to the potential for archeological deposits of
51 unknown significance, an archeological survey would be conducted prior to construction activities.
52 Should demolition of any existing structures (non-historic in nature) be necessary, asbestos and lead53 based paint surveys, remediation, disposal, etc. (if warranted) would be conducted by the current
54 owner/offeror prior to demolition and eventual GSA construction activities. Construction staging
 55 (including materials storage and staging) would all occur on the 5.0 acre site.  On-site equipment would
1 include the use of heavy trucks, or the equivalent (i.e., heavy track vehicles, etc.), plus concrete trucks.
2 Additional light-duty equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, etc.) would also be utilized throughout the
 3 duration of activities.  All equipment would likely come from local sources and would be brought to the site
4 via existing roadways.  The contractor, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, would
5 conduct all substantial equipment maintenance at an off-site location.  On-site equipment repairs would
6 be limited to routine daily maintenance and repair; any generated wastes would be disposed of according
 7 to all applicable regulations.  Construction activities would typically occur eight hours per day (8:00 a.m.
 8 to 5:00 p.m., or the equivalent), five days per week (Monday through Friday).  Should construction occur
9 on weekends or after 5:00 p.m., all activities would be conducted in accordance with the City of San
10 Antonio Ordinance (Chapter 21 Section 21-52) limit of 80 dBA at property boundaries.  Construction
 11 activities could require temporary lane closures and/or traffic/pedestrian rerouting (including potential bus
12 routes and bus stops) which would be closely coordinated with the City of San Antonio (and the VIA
13 Metropolitan Transit if necessary) and in accordance with prevailing City regulations and permit
14 requirements.  A majority of the construction materials would likely come from the San Antonio area and
 15 would be stored on site or at the staging area for the duration of activities.  All demolition/construction
 16 debris would be recycled or disposed of at an approved landfill in accordance with all applicable federal,
 17 state, and local laws and regulations.  Similarly, any hazardous wastes generated during construction
 18 activities would be disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations.  Watering
 19 exposed soils before activities commence for the day and immediately after they cease would be
 20 conducted to minimize fugitive dust.  Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to
 21 reduce soil erosion/siltation.
22
26 Figure 2-2. River Site.
27
28 In accordance with the NPDES, TCEQ TPDES, and City requirements (construction sites greater than 5
 29 acres [Phase I] and between 1 and 5 acres [Phase II]), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Sky view of alternative site locations River Site.
1 would be developed and implemented for construction activities.  A notice of intent (NOI) would be filed 2 with the TCEQ at least 48 hours in advance of construction activities.  The SWPPP would be maintained 3 on site and would provide measures to eliminate or reduce any potential impacts to surface water quality 4 in the project area and the Edwards Aquifer (i.e., implementation of BMPs).  Additionally, in compliance 5 with City of San Antonio requirements, a 24-hour spill response program conducted in conjunction with 6 the San Antonio Fire Department would be implemented.  The design of the new Federal Courthouse 7 would be consistent with the prevailing City of San Antonio Unified Development Code (Ordinance 8 Number 2007-04-12-0409) and Development Standards so that the overall look and feel of the structure 9 would complement the area.  Development of the site would also be done consistent with the newly 10 enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, specifically Section 438 (Stormwater Runoff 11 Requirements for Federal Development Projects), which requires the sponsor of any development or 12 redevelopment project involving a federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet to use 13 site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to 14 the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the 15 temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. 16
17 2.3.2.2 Operations
18 19 Operation of the new federal courthouse would not differ substantially from current activities conducted at 20 the John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse.  The new courthouse would consolidate and house one Court 21 of Appeals Judge, the District Court, Probation, Pre-Trial Services, and the U.S. Marshals Service. 22 Additionally, the Federal Public Defender and U.S. Attorneys Office would have trial preparation space.  It 23 is anticipated that all current court employees from the John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse and those 24 providing support functions from the Federal Building would relocate to the new courthouse.  The U.S. 25 Marshals Service currently residing in the Federal Building would also relocate to the new courthouse. 26 This would result in approximately 326 personnel relocating to the new facility.  The 10-year projected 27 needs would result in approximately 30 additional personnel over that time-frame, for a total of 28 approximately 356 personnel at this new location.  For the purposes of this EA, it is assumed that 29 approximately 375 government and employee private vehicles would be in the immediate area on a daily 30 basis.  It is also assumed based on data received from the courts that approximately 50 to 100 31 patrons/visitors (with the same number of vehicles) could be in the immediate area on a daily basis. 32 Although development at this site would not require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared (City of 33 San Antonio, Unified Development Code [35.502]), the GSA would conduct a Limited TIA (to be included 34 in the Final EA) and coordinate closely with the City of San Antonio, Traffic Engineering Section with 35 regards to development of the site in an effort to insure minimal impacts to the local street network. 36 Sufficient employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided at the site with the possibility of 37 additional, nearby on-street metered parking (limited in quantity) as well.  Due to security requirements, 38 no on-street metered parking would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility. 39
40 2.3.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2
41
42 Under this alternative, a new Federal Courthouse would be constructed at Hemisfair Site 2 (Figure 2-3).
 43 This alternative fully satisfies all Tier 1 guidelines and was therefore carried forward for detailed study in
 44 this EA.  More specifically, this alternative would:
45
46 (1) Provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the community.
47 (2) Provide a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria.
48 (3) Provide a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency between courts and court-related
49 agencies.
50 (4) Provide a space/facility solution that positively influences development/redevelopment in the
51 San Antonio CBD and is supported by the City of San Antonio.
52 (5) Provide the required space/facility, while minimizing disruption of current federal activities.
53 (6) Provide a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment.
54 (7) Provide a space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.
55 (8) Provide a space/facility solution where a majority of the overall site is available for acquisition
56 by the GSA.
Sky view of alternative site location  Hemisfair Site.
4 Figure 2-3. Hemisfair Site.
5
6 This alternative is similar to the previous alternative (i.e., River Site) in every way with the exception of the
 7 following:
8
9  The site is approximately 2.0 acres in size.
10  The facility would be a planned four to six stories in height and would be approximately less than
 11 326,000 gross square feet in size including underground parking.
12  Construction staging activities would occur immediately across East Durango Boulevard in a
 13 portion of the existing government parking lot.
14  No streets would be permanently closed as part of site development.
15  There are no historic structures at the site.  However due to the presence of one historic structure
 16 in the half-block APE, GSA would consult with the SHPO and interested parties as required under
17 Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the potential effects to this historic property as a
 18 result of this undertaking.
19  All current court employees from the John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse would occupy the
20 new facility upon completion.  The U.S. Marshals Service currently residing in the Federal
 21 Building would also relocate to the new courthouse.  The pre-trial and probation functions would
 22 remain in the adjacent Federal Building.
23  Similar to the previous alternative, approximately 375 government and employee private vehicles
 24 would be in the immediate area on a daily basis.  These vehicles are currently in the immediate
25 area on a daily basis.
26  Similar to the previous alternative, approximately 50 to 100 patrons/visitors (with the same
 27 number of vehicles) would be in the immediate area on a daily basis.  These vehicles are
 28 currently in the immediate area on a daily basis and would not result in an increase.
1  Sufficient employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided on-site and across 2 East Durango Boulevard in the existing parking lots with the possibility of additional, nearby on3 street metered parking (limited in quantity) as well.  Due to security requirements, no on-street 4 metered parking would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility. 5
6 2.3.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site
7
8 Under this alternative, a new Federal Courthouse would be constructed at the Police Headquarters Site
 9 (Figure 2-4).  This alternative fully satisfies all Tier 1 criteria and was therefore carried forward for detailed
10 study in this EA.  More specifically, this alternative would:
11
12 (1) Provide a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the community.
13 (2) Provide a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria.
14 (3) Provide a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency between courts and court-related
15 agencies.
16 (4) Provide a space/facility solution that positively influences development/redevelopment in the
17 San Antonio CBD and is supported by the City of San Antonio.
18 (5) Provide the required space/facility, while minimizing disruption of current federal activities.
19 (6) Provide a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment.
20 (7) Provide a space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.
21 (8) Provide a space/facility solution where a majority of the overall site is available for acquisition
22 by the GSA.
23
27 Figure 2-4. Police Headquarters Site. 28
Sky view of alternative site location  Police Headquarters Site.
1 This alternative is similar to the River Site alternative in every way with the exception of the following: 2 3  The site is approximately 7.0 acres in size. 4  No streets would be permanently closed as part of site development. 5  The facility would be a planned four stories in height. 6  There are no historic structures at the site.  However due to the presence of historic structures 7 and sites in the half-block APE, GSA would consult with the SHPO and interested parties as 8 required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the potential effects to these historic 9 properties/sites as a result of this undertaking. 10  Sufficient employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided on-site and across 11 West Nueva Street in the existing parking lot with the possibility of additional, nearby on-street 12 metered parking (limited in quantity) as well.  Due to security requirements, no on-street metered 13 parking would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility. 14
15 2.4 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 16 17 Table 2-1 provides a summary comparison of the alternatives as they related to the purpose and need 18 guidelines presented in Section 1.0.  Table 2-2 provides a summary of the environmental consequences 19 associated with implementing the proposed action through the selection of the three action alternatives or 20 selecting the no action alternative.  As demonstrated in Table 2-2, selection of the River Site would be 21 expected to result in a significant impact to historic properties.  Selection of any of the other alternatives 22 would be expected to result in no significant impacts to the environment. 23 24 Table 2-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives and Purpose and Need Guidelines.
Purpose and Need Guidelines  Alternatives
No Action  River Site  Hemisfair Site 2  Police Headquarters Site
Provides a space/facility that meets the needs of the U.S. Federal Courts and the community.   No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility that satisfies the necessary design criteria.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility that allows for increased efficiency between courts and court-related agencies.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility solution that positively influences development/redevelopment in the San Antonio CBD and is supported by the City of San Antonio.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides the required space/facility, while minimizing disruption of current federal activities.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility solution that minimizes impact to the environment.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility solution in a cost-effective manner.  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
Provides a space/facility solution where a majority of the overall site is available for acquisition by the GSA  No  Yes  Yes  Yes
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Table 2-2. Alternatives Comparison Matrix Summary.
Environmental Attributes (Threshold Criteria)  Alternatives
No Action  River Site  Hemisfair Site 2  Police Headquarters Site
Hazardous Materials and Waste (Significant hazardous materials and/or waste generated as a result of construction activities?) (Existing hazardous materials and/or waste issues at the site based on federal and state database searches?)  No No  No No  No No  No No
Socioeconomics (including Environmental Justice) (Results in significant change in area employment, income, and/or housing characteristics?) (Action occurs in an area considered to be minority in nature?) (Action occurs in an area considered to be low-income in nature?) (Results in Environmental Justice Impacts?) (Results in likely impacts to area tourism?)  No No Yes No No  No No Yes No No  No No Yes No No  No No Yes No No
Public Services and Utilities (Results in excessive strain or demand on existing facilities and/or infrastructure?)  No  No  No  No
Hydrology (Results in impacts to surface water features?) (Results in stormwater run-off in excess of defined limits?) (Results in impacts to groundwater resources?) (Results in development within the defined 100-year flood zone?)  No No No No  No No No No  No No No No  No No No No
Land Use and Zoning (Action could be in conflict with existing and/or planned land use of the site?) (Action could be in conflict with existing and/or planned land use of the immediate surrounding area?) (Action is in conflict with prevailing zoning designations?)  No No No  No 1 No 1 No  No No No  No No No
Traffic, Transportation, and Parking (Results in significant impact to area traffic and transportation routes?) (Results in parking requirements that could not be adequately met?)  No No  No No  No No  No No
Air Quality (Results in an increase above de minimis standards?)  No  No  No  No
Noise (Results in unacceptable short-term levels at nearby sensitive receptors?)   (Results in long-term increases to unacceptable levels?)  No No  No No  No No  No No
Cultural and Historic Resources (Results in significant impact to archeological resources?) (Results in significant impact to historic architectural properties?)  No No  No 2 Yes 3  No No 3  No No 3
2 1 -Although not significant, based on the adopted 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan, it appears that development of a new 3 Federal Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the River Site could be interpreted as being in conflict with the adopted 4 land use vision for the site and the immediate surrounding area.
5 2 -An archeological survey would be conducted prior to ground-disturbing or other construction activities to insure no impacts to 6 archeological resources that may be present at the site.
7 3 -GSA would consult with the SHPO and interested parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the 8 potential effects to historic properties as a result of this undertaking.
1 SECTION 3.0
2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3 4 This section of the EA describes the existing environment of the areas comprising the three alternative 5 locations under consideration by the GSA for construction of a new Federal Courthouse.  This includes 6 the approximate 5.0-acre River Site, the 2.0-acre Hemisfair Site, and the 7.0-acre Police Headquarters 7 Site. All three sites were depicted previously in Section 2.0 (see Figure 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4). 8
9 3.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 10 11 As part of the planning process, GSA prepared three separate Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 12 (ESAs) for each site under consideration for construction of a new Federal Courthouse.  The purpose of13 the Phase I ESAs was to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in 14 connection with each of the sites under consideration.  By doing this, the assessments were intended to 15 permit the GSA to qualify for defenses to liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 16 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), that is, the practices that constitute "all appropriate inquiry 17 into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary 18 practice" as defined in 42 U.S. Code (USC) 9601(35)(B).   19 20 The Phase I ESAs were conducted within the scope of the American Society for Testing Materials 21 (ASTM) E 1527-05 standard.  As part of the assessment, Environmental Data Resources (EDR) was 22 contracted to conduct a search of Federal and State databases containing known and suspected sites of 23 environmental contamination.  In order to describe the existing conditions at (and immediately 24 surrounding) the sites under consideration, the number of listed sites identified within the approximate 25 minimum search distance (AMSD) from the Federal and State environmental records database listings 26 specified in ASTM Standard E 1527-05 are summarized in the following sections.  The EDR summary 27 reports are included as Appendix A and the complete Phase I ESA reports are on file with the GSA.   28
29 3.1.1 River Site 30 31 The River Site is largely covered with surface parking on the north and northwest portions of the site. 32 Several structures exist on the site with the largest one (historical in nature) currently being used as an 33 office building.  The remainder of the site is maintained grass and other ornamental vegetation. 34 Surrounding uses are largely commercial and/or industrial in nature with the San Antonio River to the 35 immediate east. The search of Federal and State databases containing known and suspected sites of 36 environmental contamination in the vicinity of the River Site resulted in the identification of the following 37 (Table 3-1).  As demonstrated in the summary table below, and based on the findings of the Phase I ESA 38 conducted for the River Site, there are no known existing hazardous materials and/or waste issues 39 associated with the River Site. 40
41 3.1.2 Hemisfair Site 2 42 43 The Hemisfair Site is immediately adjacent to the existing Federal Building and is comprised largely of 44 existing surface parking associated with the Federal Building.  Approximately half of the site is land 45 associated with the adjacent (east) University of Texas San Antonio Institute of Texan Cultures.  Land to 46 the south is largely surface parking and Hemisfair Park and associated facilities can be found to the north 47 of the site.  The search of Federal and State databases containing known and suspected sites of 48 environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Hemisfair Site resulted in the identification of the 49 following (Table 3-2).  As demonstrated in the summary table below, and based on the findings of the 50 Phase I ESA conducted for the Hemisfair Site, there are no known existing hazardous materials and/or 51 waste issues associated with the Hemisfair Site. 52 53 54
1 2  3.1.3  Police Headquarters Site
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  The Police Headquarters Site includes one large office building on the northeast corner of the site and a smaller vehicle maintenance structure on the southeast corner with a communications tower adjacent to it. The remainder of the site is paved for parking with maintained grass, trees and ornamental vegetation dispersed throughout.  In the vehicle maintenance area, soil contamination has been addressed, final concurrence was issued by the State and the case closed.  Surrounding uses are largely commercial and/or industrial in nature with the San Antonio River approximately  mile to the east. The search of Federal and State databases containing known and suspected sites of environmental contamination in the vicinity of the Police Headquarters Site resulted in the identification of the following (Table 3-3).  As demonstrated in the summary table below, and based on the findings of the Phase I ESA conducted for the site, there are no known existing hazardous materials and/or waste issues associated with the Police Headquarters Site.
15  Table 3-1. Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the River Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to River Site  Database Listing  Findings
Federal Databases  blank
 Blank
 Blank
Brown Express, Inc. 428 S. Main Street  1/8 to  mile north  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
PDR Boat Company 202 E. Nueva  1/8 to  mile north-northeast  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
Exxon Mobil Corp. 700 S. St. Marys  1/8   mile east  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
San Antonio Arsenal No address  1/8 to  mile south-southwest  FUDS  Military munitions produced or demilitarized at the site. Current use of the site is industrial with historic buildings owned by the City.  Site is not a REC.
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
Downtown Muffler Shop 601 S. Alamo   to  mile east  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination, final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
SS 6 7678 700 S. St. Marys  1/8 to  mile east  LTANKS/ UST  No groundwater impact, no threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Don Lee Sidney Francis II 701 S. St. Marys  1/8 to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS/ UST  Groundwater impacted, no apparent threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Allen Electric 728 S. St. Marys   to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS  No apparent threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed.  Site is not a REC.
Tower Garage 211 Villita Street   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Tower Life 310 S. St. Marys   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
San Antonio Police Dept. 214 W. Nueva   to  mile north-northwest  LTANKS  Soil contamination.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
City of San Antonio 740 Alamo Street   to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Loomis Armored 611 S. Presa Street   to  mile southeast  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Conoco 511 915 S. Flores   to  mile southwest  LTANKS  No groundwater impact, no threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence pending.  Tanks removed from the ground.  Site is not a REC.
CPS Manhole 21287 901 S. Laredo   to  mile west-southwest  LTANKS  No groundwater impact, no threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
HE Butt Grocery 646 S. Main Street  0 to 1/8 mile west-southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Kallison Properties 455 S. Main Street  1/8 to  mile north-northwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground or filled in place.  Site is not a REC.
Table 3-1 (contd.).  Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the River Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to River Site  Database Listing  Findings
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
City Marina 202 E. Nueva Street  1/8 to  mile north-northeast  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Federal Res. Bank of Dallas 128 E. Nueava Street  1/8 to  mile north  UST  No violations reported. One tank in use, others removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
San Antonio Fleet Manage. 651 S. Main Avenue  0 to 1/8 mile west-southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tank filled in ground. Site is not a REC.
Building 12 651 South Main Avenue  0 to 1/8 mile west-southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks filled in ground. Site is not a REC.
A Action Engine & Trans. 701 S. Flores Street  1/8 to  mile west-southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
TG Liljenwall Truck and Tire 125 Guadalupe Street   to  mile west-southwest  TX VCP  Soils impacted. Site is not a REC.
NCB 637 Alamo SEC S. Cherry and ML   to  mile south-southeast  TX VCP  Soils and groundwater impacted.  Site is not a REC.
2 REC Recognized Environmental Condition
3 RCRA-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Generator
 4 FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
5 LTANKS Leaking Underground Storage Tank
6 UST Underground Storage Tank
7 TX VCP Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program
8 Source: GSA 2007
9 10 Table 3-2. Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Hemisfair Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to Hemisfair Site  Database Listing  Findings
Federal Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
San Antonio Arsenal No address  1/2 to 1 mile west  FUDS  Military munitions produced or demilitarized at the site. Current use of the site is industrial with historic buildings owned by the City.  Site is not a REC.
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
Downtown Muffler Shop 601 S. Alamo  1/8 to  mile west  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination, final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
City Water Brd. Centr. Plant 1001 E. Market Street   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
PMT 402 Hoefgen Avenue   to  mile east  LTANKS  Groundwater impact, off-site migration unlikely. Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Tanks removed from ground or filled in place.  Site is not a REC.
Lila Cockrell Theater 200 E. Market   to  mile north-northwest  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted, no threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
Alamo Iron Works 101 Montana Street   to  mile east  LTANKS  Groundwater impact, off-site migration unlikely. Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Allied Electric & AC 511 Hoefgen   to  mile east  LTANKS  Groundwater impact, off-site migration unlikely. Final concurrence pending documentation. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
City of SA Central SH 224 Nevada Street   to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Former Amoco Station 303 Blum Street   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted, no threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
Alamo Dome Bus Facility SE Hoefgen & Galveston   to  mile east-northeast  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination.  Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Tanks filled in place.  Site is not a REC.
EN Garage 237 N. Center Street   to  mile northeast  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted. No water supply well within  mile.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
11
Table 3-2 (contd.).  Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Hemisfair Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to River Site  Database Listing  Findings
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
City of San Antonio 740 Alamo Street  1/8 to  mile west-southwest  LTANKS/ UST  Soil contamination only. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Loomis Armored 611 S. Presa Street   to  mile west-southwest  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Allen Electric 728 S. St. Marys   to  mile west  LTANKS  No apparent threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Site is not a REC.
Don Lee Sidney Francis II 701 S. St. Marys   to  mile west  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted, no apparent threats or impacts to receptors.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Herbert Contraras Jr. 716 S. Presa Street   to  mile southwest  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
SS 6 7678 700 S. St. Marys   to  mile west  LTANKS  No groundwater impact, no threats or impacts to receptors. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Liberto Specialties Company 830 S. Presa Street   to  mile south-southwest  LTANKS  Soil contamination, no action required.  Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Site is not a REC.
Dakota St. Soc. 203 Dakota Street   to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted, off-site migration unlikely.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
VIA Metropolitan Transit 313 Dakota   to  mile east-southeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tank removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Anthony Specia 716 S. Alamo Street  1/8 to  mile west-southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
SA Convention Center 600 East Market Street   to  mile north  TX VCP  Soil and groundwater contamination.  Site is not a REC.
H.B. Gonz. Convention Ctr. 200 East Market Street   to  mile north-northwest  TX VCP  Soils impacted. Site is not a REC.
2 REC Recognized Environmental Condition
3 FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
4 LTANKS Leaking Underground Storage Tank
5 UST Underground Storage Tank
6 TX VCP Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program
7 Source: GSA 2007a
8 9 Table 3-3. Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Police Headquarters 10 Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to Police Headquarters Site  Database Listing  Findings
Federal Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
Brown Express, Inc. 428 S. Main Street  . to  mile southeast  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
PDR Boat Company 202 E. Nueva  . to  mile east-southeast  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
Anacomp 117 W. Commerce  . to  mile northeast  RCRA-SQG  No violations found, site is not a REC
San Antonio Arsenal No address  . to  mile south-southeast  FUDS  Military munitions produced or demilitarized at the site. Current use of the site is industrial with historic buildings owned by the City.  Site is not a REC.
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
City of San Antonio SAPD Central 214 W. Nueva St San Antonio, TX 78207  Target Property  TIER 2  No violations reported.
1 Table 3-3 (contd.).  Summary List of Federal and State Listed Sites Relative to the Police 2 Headquarters Site.
Site ID and Address  Location Relative to Police Headquarters Site  Database Listing  Findings
State Databases  Blank
 Blank
 Blank
San Antonio Police Dept 214 W. Nueva St San Antonio, TX 78207  Target Property  LTANKS  Final Concurrence issued, case closed.  The site is not a REC. Minor soil contamination - does not require a RAP.
San Antonio Police Dept 214 W. Nueva St San Antonio, TX 78207  Target Property  AST  No violations found, site is not a REC.
San Antonio Police Dept 214 W. Nueva St San Antonio, TX 78207  Target Property  UST (2)  No violations found, site is not a REC.
Christus Santa Rosa Health Center 333 N. Santa Rosa St.   to  mile north-northwest  LTANKS  No groundwater impact, no apparent threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Fiesta Plaza 211 S. Pecos St.   to  mile west-northwest  LTANKS  Group 1 groundwater, off-site migration unlikely, final concurrence, case closed.  Site is not a REC.
Cattleman Square 700 W. Commerce   to  mile northeast  LTANKS  Groundwater impacted, no apparent threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
Travis Park Plaza Garage 217 E. Travis   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only, requires full site assessment and RAP, final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC
Central Plant 900 E. Commerce St.   to  mile west-northwest  LTANKS  Soil contamination - no remedial action required. Final concurrence issued, case closed.  Site is not a REC.
Firestone Service Center 445 N. Main Ave.   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination - does not require a RAP. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site in not a REC.
Tower Garage 211 Villita Street   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Tower Life 310 S. St. Marys   to  mile north-northeast  LTANKS  Minor soil contamination. Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
Western Union Telegraph 205 E. Travis St.   to  mile northeast  LTANKS  Soil contamination only, requires full site assessment and RAP.  Final concurrence issued, case closed. Site is not a REC.
SS 6 7678 700 S. St. Marys  . to  mile east  LTANKS/ UST  No groundwater impact, no threats or impacts to receptors, final concurrence issued, case closed. Tanks removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Stop N Go Markets 1520 303 S. Santa Rosa Ave.  0 to . mile west  UST  No violations reported. Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
Information Services Dept. Gene 506 Dolorosa  0 to . mile northeast  UST  No violations reported.  Tank in use.  Site is not a REC.
Bill Miller Bar-B-Q 430 S Santa Rosa  . to  mile southwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks (2) removed from ground, one tank in use.  Site is not a REC.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 128 E. Nueava Street  . to  mile north  UST  No violations reported. One tank in use, others removed from ground.  Site is not a REC.
Kallison Properties 455 S. Main Street  . to  mile north-northwest  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground or filled in place.  Site is not a REC.
City Marina 202 E. Nueva Street  . to  mile north-northeast  UST  No violations reported.  Tanks removed from ground. Site is not a REC.
TG Liljenwall Truck and Tire Sales 125 Guadalupe Street   to  mile south-southwest  TX VCP  Soils impacted.  Site is not a REC.
3 REC Recognized Environmental Condition  RAP Remedial Action Plan4 RCRA-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Generator Source: GSA 2007b 5 FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites 6 LTANKS Leaking Underground Storage Tank 7 UST Underground Storage Tank  8 TX VCP Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program  9 TIER 2 Tier 2 Chemical Inventory Reports
1 3.2 SOCIOECONOMICS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE) 2 3 All numbers presented in this section are based on the results of the 2000 U.S. Census which represents 4 the most current and complete demographic data publicly available.  The ROI for socioeconomics is 5 defined as USCB Tract 1101, as all three proposed sites are located within this Census Tract. Bexar 6 County and City of San Antonio data is used when appropriate and for comparative purposes. 7 Demographic data for Tract 1101, which is applicable to all sites under consideration, is provided below in 8 Table 3-4.  The River Site and the Police Headquarters Site are located with USCB Block Group 7.  The 9 Hemisfair Site is within Block Group 3.  This more detailed demographic data is provided later in the 10 section. 11 12 As demonstrated in Table 3-4, Bexar County, the City of San Antonio, and USCB Tract 1101 all have a 13 minority population greater than 50 percent, but none demonstrates numbers that could be considered 14 meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population.   15 16 A difference can be seen between Census Tract 1101 and the City of San Antonio and Bexar County with 17 regards to unemployment, income, and poverty level.  Unemployment in Census Tract 1101 is reported 18 as being approximately three times higher than that of Bexar County and the City.  Income within Census 19 Tract 1101 is generally reported as being half that of Bexar County and the City and the data also indicate 20 a minor increase (between 7 and 8 percent) in the number of families below the poverty level within 21 Census Tract 1101.  The median household income found within Census Tract 1101 is reported as being 22 $16,029 which is below the defined national poverty threshold of $17,603.  As such, those households 23 are considered to be low-income in nature.  There is also a higher prevalence of vacant housing units 24 within Census Tract 1101 when compared to that of Bexar County and the City. 25 26 Table 3-4. Demographic Data for Tract 1101, Bexar County, and the City of San Antonio.
Data Set  Bexar County  City of San Antonio  U.S. Census Tract 1101
Population
Total Population  1,392,931  1,144,646  3,316
White non-Hispanic  36%  32%  31%
Black or African American  7%  8%  9%
American Indian or Alaska Native  1%  1%  2%
Hispanic or Latino  56%  59%  58%
Total Minority Population  64%  68%  69%
Employment and Income
Labor Force Employed (civilian)  94%  94%  82%
Labor Force Unemployed (civilian)  6%  6%  18%
Median Household Income  $38,328  $36,214  $16,029
Families Below Poverty Level  13%  14%  21%
Housing
Total Housing Units  521,359  489,867  1,924
Occupied Housing Units  94%  90%  83%
Vacant Housing Units  6%  10%  17%
27 Notes: 28 All data presented is approximate in nature and standard rounding has been employed. 29 Source: USCB 2007a 30 31 U.S. Census Block Group Data32 33 U.S. Census Block Groups represents a subdivision of a given U.S. Census Tract.  A Block Group is the 34 smallest geographic unit for which the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates sample data.  As mentioned earlier, 35 the River Site and the Police Headquarters Site are located with U.S. Census Block Group 7 and the 36 Hemisfair Site is within Block Group 3.  Table 3-5 provides demographic data for these two Block Groups 37 along with a comparison to the larger geographic area of Census Tract 1101 data provided in the 38 previous table.
Table 3-5. Demographic Data for Block Group 3 and Block Group 7.
Data Set  U.S. Census Tract 1101  Block Group 7 (River Site and Police HQ Site)  Block Group 3 (Hemisfair Site)
Population  Blank
Total Population  3,316  211  243
White non-Hispanic  31%  32%  47%
Black or African American  9%  17%  10%
American Indian or Alaska Native  2%  1%  2%
Hispanic or Latino  58%  50%  41%
Total Minority Population  69%  68%  53%
Employment and Income  Blank
Labor Force Employed (civilian)  82%  38%  80%
Labor Force Unemployed (civilian)  18%  62%  20%
Median Household Income  $16,029  $7,596  $14,844
Families Below Poverty Level  21%  65%  0%
Housing
Total Housing Units  1,924  118  169
Occupied Housing Units  83%  70%  76%
Vacant Housing Units  17%  30%  24%
2 Notes: 3 All data presented is approximate in nature and standard rounding has been employed. 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007a 5 6 As demonstrated in Table 3-5, both Block Group 3 and Block Group 7 have a minority population greater 7 than 50 percent.  Block Group 7 (68 percent minority) is more closely reflective of the larger Census Tract 8 1101 (69 percent minority), with Block Group 3 being approximately 10 percent less (53 percent minority). 9 Neither of the Block Groups demonstrates numbers that could be considered meaningfully greater (or 10 less) than the minority population percentage in the general population. 11 12 A difference can be seen between the two Block Groups with regards to unemployment, income, and 13 poverty level.  Unemployment and income within Block Group 3 is similar to that of the larger 14 encompassing Census Tract 1101.  However, with regards to Block Group 7, unemployment is reported 15 as being roughly three times that of Block Group 3 and the larger Census Tract 1101 at approximately 62 16 percent. Median household income is reported to be about half in Block Group 7 as that of Block Group 3 17 and the larger Census Tract 1101.  Similar to Census Tract 1101, both Block Groups are reported to be 18 below the defined national poverty threshold of $17,603.  As such, those household are considered to be 19 low-income in nature.  The biggest difference between the two Block Groups can be seen in families 20 considered below the poverty level.  As demonstrated, 65 percent of the families within Block Group 7 are 21 reported as being below the poverty level.  None are reported within Block Group 3.  When comparing 22 these results to the larger encompassing Census Tract 1101, Block Group 3 demonstrates roughly three 23 times the number of families below the poverty level (65 percent). 24 25 In summary, when compared to the general population, neither Block Group 3 nor Block Group 7 26 demonstrates numbers that could be considered meaningfully greater than the minority population 27 percentage in the general population.  However, as reported by the USCB, both Block Group 3 and 7 can 28 both be considered low-income in nature, with Block Group 7 demonstrating traits of extreme poverty. 29 30 Tourism 31 32 San Antonios reputation as a great place to visit has made it a favorite of meeting planners and tourists, 33 and visitors and tourists have a vital role in the local economy.  According to a 2004 study, The Economic 34 Impact of San Antonios Hospitality Industry (Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce 2004), more 35 than 21 million visitors came to San Antonio in 2004.  These visitors, and the hospitality industry as a 36 whole produce a number of economic benefits for the City:
1
2  Creation of both part-time and full-time jobs.
3  Visitor spending impacts local economy  sports, food service, transportation, cultural events,
4 healthcare, etc.
5  Visitor spending has a multiplier effect. Each dollar of visitor spending generates approximately
 6 one additional dollar of income for San Antonio as the effects of this spending work their way
7 through the local economy.
8  The presence of so many visitors helps promote a vibrant and diverse cultural and social
 9 atmosphere that is attractive to San Antonio residents and visitors alike.
10 11 Economic Impact12
13 Tourism and hospitality is a vital and expanding part of the San Antonio economy.  According to the 2004 14 hospitality industry study, San Antonio ranks tenth among U.S. destinations for overnight leisure travel: 15 16  In 2004, 17.4 million leisure visitors came to enjoy San Antonios unique history and culture.  Of 17 these, 9.1 million were overnight leisure visitors. 18  An additional 3.9 million business visitors came to the area for conventions and other business
19 purposes. 20 21 The hospitality industrys economic impact 22 in 2004 was just under $8.7 billion.  The 23 businesses that make up the hospitality 24 industry fall into four sectors: 25 Transportation and Travel Arrangements; 26 Lodging and other traveler 27 accommodations; Restaurants and other 28 eating and drinking establishments; and 29 Entertainment and recreation activities 30 ranging from golf to cultural events, 31 amusement parks, and spectator sports. 32 The Restaurant sector made the largest 33 contribution to the local economy, 34 accounting for 40.7 percent of the total 35 economic impact or $3.5 billion. 36 Transportation and Lodging contributed 37 23.2 percent and 24.3 percent respectively. 38
Economic impact of Tourism and Hospitality pie graph that shows 24% Lodging, 40.7% Restaurants, 11.9% Entertainment and 23.2% Transportation.
Lodging 24.3%
Restaurants 40.7%
Entertainment 11.9%
Transportation 23.2%
39 The industrys annual payroll was $1.58 billion (direct wage payments) with an average of 93,999 jobs in 40 2004. Over two thirds of these workers were employed in the Restaurant sector and many were part-time 41 employees. 42
43 Financial Contribution to Local Government 44 45 Tourism and hospitality is also a major contributor of tax and other revenues to local government, 46 providing $99.7 million in revenues in 2004.  This is equivalent to 15.6 percent of the Citys adopted 47 General Fund budget for the 2004 fiscal year.  The revenues come from a variety of sources.  The largest 48 share ($46.4 million) comes from the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT).  Property taxes on real and personal 49 business property accounted for $12.5 million in City revenues.  Sales taxes paid on purchases at 50 businesses in the hospitality industry contributed another $20.0 million.  These businesses bought $86.0 51 million worth of electricity and natural gas from CPS Energy; since 14% of CPS revenues are paid to the 52 City in lieu of taxes, the City received $12.0 million from these payments.  Smaller amounts of revenue 53 ($8.9 million) were received from river cruise concessions and taxes on alcoholic beverages sold in 54 restaurants and bars.  The City of San Antonio is not the only local government entity that depends on 55 revenues from tourism and the hospitality industry, as sales, property and hotel occupancy taxes are paid
1 to other municipalities.  In addition,
2 Bexar County collects property and
 3 hotel occupancy taxes, while school
 4 districts, the Alamo Community College
Financial Contribution from Tourism and Hospitality pie chart that show 46.4% HOT, 12.0% CPS, 12.5% Property Tax, 20.1% Sales Tax and 8.9% Other.
HOT 46.4%
5 District, the University Health System
6 and the San Antonio River Authority all
CPS 12.0%
7 levy property taxes paid by hospitality
8 and tourism-related businesses.  The
Property Tax
 9 County collected $9.2 million in HOT
 12.5% Sales Tax 20.1%
10 taxes in 2004.  Property taxes on just 11 those tourism and hospitality-related
Other 8.9%
12 businesses located within the San
13 Antonio City limits contributed $37
14 million to local school districts, $7 million
15 to Bexar County, and another $8 million
16 to the other taxing entities. Figure 3-2. Financial Contribution from Tourism
17
and Hospitality.
18 Tourist and Visitor Attractions
19
20 As mentioned, a variety of attractions draw visitors to San Antonio for business and for pleasure.  A listing
21 of several of the attractions and opportunities that draw people to visit San Antonio include:
22
23  San Antonio River Walk
24  Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center
25  Market Square
26  Hemisfair Park and the Tower of the Americas
27  Casa Navarro State Historical Park and other parks
28  Spanish Governors Palace
29  Majestic and Empire Theatres
30  San Antonio Zoo
31  The Alamo and Mission Trail
32  Mission San Jose
33  Witte Museum
34  UTSAs Institute of Texan Cultures
35  King William and other Historic Districts
36  La Villita
37  Market Square
38  Sunset Station
39  Fort Sam Houston and other military installations
40  Museum of Modern Art and other museums
41  San Antonio Botanical Gardens
42  San Antonio Zoological Gardens and Aquarium
43  Six Flags Fiesta Texas
44  Sea World San Antonio
45  Splashtown
46  Alamodome
47  Golf courses
48  Parks
49
50 Relevant to the three sites under consideration for the new Federal Courthouse, the following attractions
51 or destinations are within the immediate vicinity:
52
1  The San Antonio River is immediately adjacent to the River Site.  Commander House Park is 2 located approximately one block south of the River Site across East Durango Boulevard.  The 3 Arsenal Historic District can also be found to the south across East Durango Boulevard. 4 5  Hemisfair Park (including the Tower of the Americas), the Convention Center, and the UTSA 6 Institute of Texan Cultures are adjacent to the Hemisfair Site.  The Alamodome is further to the 7 east across IH 37.  The Hemisfair Site is within the Hemisfair Historic District and the Lavaca 8 Historic District is immediately adjacent, across East Durango Boulevard.  The La Villita Historic 9 District is a bit further to the northwest.   10 11  There are no major tourist attractions or destinations in the immediately adjacent to the Police 12 Headquarters Site, however, the Main/Military Plaza Historic District is just northeast, across 13 Nueva Street. 14
15 3.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 16 17 Public Transit 18 19 VIA Metropolitan Transit is the public transit system in San Antonio.  Services provided by VIA include: 20 bus service including downtown streetcar service; paratransit service for riders with disabilities; vanpool 21 service for commuters; and special event park and ride services.  The River Site is served by VIA Metro 22 Route 67 and Frequent Route 68.  The Hemisfair Site is served by both Metro and Express routes 23 (Routes 30 and 16 respectively) and the Police Headquarters Site is served by Express Route 64.  An 24 existing bus stop can be found at the River Site at the corner of East Durango Boulevard and South Main 25 Avenue. Bus stops are also located at the existing Federal Courthouse and Federal Building adjacent to 26 the Hemisfair Site.  An existing bus stop is also provided at West Nueva Street and South Santa Rosa 27 Street at the Police Headquarters Site (VIA Metropolitan Transit 2007). 28 29 Police and Fire 30 31 Police and safety is provided by the City of San Antonio Police Department.  The closest police station is 32 found at one of the three sites under consideration  the Police Headquarters Site located at the corner of 33 West Nueva Street and South Santa Rosa Street.  The second closest police station can be found 34 approximately  mile west-southwest on South Frio.  Fire protection and safety is provided for the City by 35 the San Antonio Fire Department.  There are four fire stations that can readily serve the area in which all 36 three proposed sites are located: Fire Station 1 located at 801 East Houston Street, Fire Station 3 located 37 at 1425 East Commerce Street, Fire Station 7 located at 1414 South St. Marys, and Fire Station 11 38 located at 610 South Frio (City of San Antonio 2007). 39 40 Schools and Other Public Buildings and/or Facilities 41 42 Public schools are provided for the City of San Antonio by the San Antonio Independent School District 43 (SAISD). Schools include: elementary, middle, high, academies, special, and magnets (SAISD 2007): 44 45  The San Antonio Technology Academy Charter School is located approximately .20 miles to the 46 west of the River Site at 605 South Flores Street and the George Sanchez Charter High School is 47 located approximately .05 miles north of the River Site at 436 South Main Avenue.  Alamo 48 Community College also has a facility approximately .30 miles southwest of the River Site at 201 49 West Sheridan. 50 51  Herff Elementary School is located approximately .20 miles south of the Hemisfair Site at 406 52 Barrera Street and Bonham Elementary School is approximately .30 miles west of the Hemisfair 53 Site at 925 South St. Marys Street.  The SAISD also has a facility across from the existing 54 Federal Courthouse at 141 Lavaca Street.   55
1  The University of Texas at San Antonio, Downtown Campus as well as the Navarro Academy can 2 both be found further west, across Interstate Highway (IH) 35 South.  These are the closest 3 educational facilities to the Police Headquarters Site.  The closest medical facilities, hospital, and 4 other related services can be found north of the Police Headquarters Site in the North Santa 5 Rosa Street/East Houston Street vicinity.   6 7 Solid Waste 8 9 Solid waste collection and disposal within the City of San Antonio is provided by the City.  However, a 10 variety of private collection companies provide solid waste collection and disposal for commercial and 11 business entities.  There are two primary landfills that serve the San Antonio area, the first is the Covel 12 Gardens Landfill (owned by Waste Management of Texas, Inc.) and the second is the BFI/Allied Waste 13 Tessman Road Landfill. The Tessman Road Landfill is closest (east) to all of the proposed sites (City of 14 San Antonio 2007a). 15 16 Water and Wastewater 17 18 The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) is a public utility owned by the City of San Antonio  The SAWS 19 serves approximately 1 million people in the urbanized part of Bexar County.  This population includes 20 approximately 325,944 water customers and 354,878 wastewater customers. The SAWS service areas 21 are established by its permits from state regulatory authorities. The service area for water supply includes 22 most (but not all) of the City of San Antonio, several suburban municipalities, and adjacent parts of Bexar 23 County.  In addition to serving its own retail customers, SAWS also provides wholesale water supplies to 24 several smaller utility systems within this area boundary. A larger and somewhat different area, following 25 natural watersheds, is defined for wastewater collection and treatment.  SAWS is the only sewage 26 treatment agency in this area, and it charges a fee to the military bases and suburban cities which 27 maintain their own wastewater collection systems.  SAWS also provides collection and treatment services 28 by contract to developments outside its defined service area, to avoid unnecessary proliferation of state 29 wastewater discharge permits. Currently, most of San Antonios drinking water is pumped from the 30 Edwards Aquifer (see Section 3.4 for more details).  All three proposed sites are within the defined SAWS 31 Water Distribution Area and within the SAWS defined Central Sewer Service Area (SAWS 2007). 32 33 Natural Gas and Electric Service 34 35 Acquired by the City of San Antonio, CPS Energy (the nations largest municipally-owned utility with both 36 natural gas and electric service) serves approximately 677,000 electric customers and almost 318,000 37 natural gas customers in and around San Antonio. CPS Energy adds, on average, 1,000 to 2,000 new 38 customers each month and accommodates growth through its Strategic Energy Plan.  All three proposed 39 sites are within an area served by the City of San Antonios, CPS Energy (CPS Energy 2007). 40
41 3.4 HYDROLOGY 42 43 Surface Water 44 45 As mentioned previously, all three sites under consideration for construction and operation of a new 46 Federal Courthouse are currently either completely developed (the Police Headquarters Site) or largely 47 developed (the River Site and the Hemisfair Site are approximately 50 percent or more developed) and 48 contain no surface water features.  Surface water drainage at all three sites is via sheet drainage to 49 engineered storm collection basins.  The San Antonio River is immediately adjacent (east) of the River 50 Site and receives some stormwater runoff from the eastern portion of the site.  The San Antonio River has 51 been straightened and channelized in the area as part of the San Antonio River Walk, the primary tourist 52 attraction in the City of San Antonio which features many of San Antonios hotels, restaurants, night 53 clubs, shopping centers, and businesses.  San Pedro Creek is immediately east of the Police 54 Headquarters Site.
1 Groundwater 2 3 Currently, most of San Antonios drinking water is pumped from the Edwards Aquifer, a massive 4 underground reservoir.  The Edwards Aquifer is intensely faulted and fractured carbonate limestone that 5 lies within the Balcones fault zone.  The dynamics and size of the this geologic anomaly make it one of 6 the most wondrous aquifers in the nation, through its storage capacity, flow characteristics, water 7 producing capabilities, and efficient recharging ability.  The Edwards aquifer and its catchment area in the 8 San Antonio region is about 8,000 square miles and includes all or part of 13 counties in south-central 9 Texas. The recharge and artesian areas of the Edwards aquifer underlie the six counties south and east 10 of the Balconces fault escarpment.  The aquifer underlies approximately 3,600 square miles, is about 180 11 miles long from west to east and varies from 5 to 30 miles wide.  The Edwards aquifer receives most of its 12 water from the drainage basins located on the Edwards Plateau.  The catchment area, about 4,400 13 square miles, contains the drainage basins of the streams that recharge the Edwards aquifer. In the San 14 Antonio region, the Edwards limestone attains a thickness of approximately 450 to 500 feet.  The water 15 wells supplying SAWS customers number a total of 92 with an average daily pumpage of 136.50 million 16 gallons per day or 418 acre-feet.  From 1934 through 1994 the average recharge to the Edwards aquifer 17 was 676,600 acre-feet.  The quality of the water produced by the Edwards Aquifer is generally considered 18 exceptionally good (Eckhardt 2007). 19 20 Floodplains21 22 According to FEMA FIRM, the River Site is largely outside of the FEMA defined 100-year and 500-year 23 floodplains.  The extreme eastern portion of the site, from just west of Aubrey Street stretching to the San 24 Antonio River is delineated as being within the 500-year flood zone.  The adjacent San Antonio River is 25 delineated as being within the 100-year flood zone.  The Hemisfair Site is delineated by FEMA as being 26 outside both the 500-year and 100-year flood zones.  The Police Headquarters Site is shown by FEMA as 27 also being outside the 500-year and 100-year flood zones.  San Pedro Creek, to the immediate east, is 28 defined as being within the 100-year flood zone (EDR 2007). 29
30 3.5 LAND USE AND ZONING 31 32 Both zoning (City of San Antonio Unified Development Code, Ordinance 2007-04-12-0409) and land use 33 designations (Unified Development Code, Section 35-420) are established by the City of San Antonio. 34 The City of San Antonio Development Services Department is divided into two divisions - Building 35 Development and Land Development.  The Land Development Division is involved with the review and 36 approval process of Master Development Plans (MDPs), Plats, Tree Preservation, Infrastructure, Traffic 37 Impact Analysis (TIAs), Addressing, Zoning, and Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments.   38 39 The zoning designations relevant to one or more of sites (often in combination with other listed 40 designations) are as follows (City of San Antonio 2007b).  Zoning and land use data specific to each of 41 the three sites under consideration is provided following the zoning designation descriptions 42 43 Zoning Designations44 45  D -Downtown (Base Zoning District).  This district provides concentrated downtown retail, 46 service, office and mixed uses in the existing central business districts.  Major/regional shopping 47 centers are permitted, but urban design standards are required in order maintain a neighborhood 48 commercial scale, to promote pedestrian activity, and to maintain the unique character of the 49 center.  Large outdoor sales areas are not permitted.  Pedestrian circulation is required as are 50 common parking areas. The "D" district promotes the long-term vitality of the central business 51 district. 52 53  C-2  Commercial (Base Zoning District).  These districts permit general commercial activities 54 designed to serve the community such as repair shops, wholesale businesses, warehousing and 55 limited retail sales with some outdoor display of goods.  These districts promote a broad range of
1 commercial operations and services necessary for large regions of the city, providing community 2 balance.  3 4  O-2  Office (Base Zoning District). This district permits institutional, indoor retail, service and 5 office uses requiring arterial or collector street access and business and commercial development 6 along urban arterials.  The purpose of the "O-1" and "O-2" districts is to accommodate well7 designed development sites that provide excellent transportation access, make the most efficient 8 use of existing infrastructure and provide for orderly transitions and buffers between uses. 9 10  RM-4  Mixed Residential (Base Zoning District). These districts provide areas for medium to 11 high-density, single-family residential uses mixed with a variety of housing types where adequate 12 public facilities and services exist with capacity to serve development.  These districts are 13 composed mainly of areas containing a mixture of single-family, two-family and multi-family 14 dwellings and open space where similar residential development seems likely to occur. The 15 district regulations are designed to encourage a suitable neighborhood environment for family life 16 by including among the permitted uses such facilities as schools and churches; and to preserve 17 the openness of the area by requiring certain minimum yard and area standards.  Mixed 18 residential districts provide flexible minimum lot size and density requirements in order to allow for 19 market and design flexibility while preserving the neighborhood character and permitting20 applicants to cluster development in order to preserve environmentally sensitive and agricultural 21 land areas.  22 23  RIO  3 and 4 (River Overlay Districts).  The purpose of these districts is to establish 24 regulations to protect, preserve and enhance the San Antonio River and its improvements by 25 establishing design standards and guidelines for properties located near the river.  The San 26 Antonio River is a unique and precious natural, cultural and historic resource that provides a 27 physical connection through San Antonio by linking a variety of neighborhoods, cultural sites, 28 public parks and destinations.  The districts (1 through 6) cover a total of six (6) geographic areas 29 spanning the river from its northern boundary, near Hildebrand Avenue, to a southern boundary 30 near Mission Espada and the southern city limits.  31 32  H  Historic District and HS  Historic Significance (Overlay Districts). Historic districts and 33 landmark designations are adopted in order to protect and preserve places and areas of 34 historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance. Historic districts and landmark 35 designation preserve and enhance the City's historic resources.  Such districts bear the word 36 "historic" in their zoning designation; such landmarks bear the words "historic, exceptional" (HE) 37 or "historic, significant" (HS) in their zoning designation.  38 39 Land Use Designations40 41 The City of San Antonio, Neighborhood Planning Urban Design Division partners with the community 42 (neighborhood associations, community organizations, and other community-related groups) to produce 43 Neighborhood and Community Plans that include goals and action steps for land use, housing, economic 44 development, community facilities and transportation networks.  Each plan is submitted to the City 45 Council for approval and implementation.  Neighborhood Plans focus on smaller geographic areas of 46 about one square mile, 4,000 to 10,000 residents, or at least 1,500 dwellings.  Neighborhood Plans 47 generally include the population necessary to support an elementary school.  Usually, two or more 48 neighborhood association areas are included within a Neighborhood Plan. Community Plans focus on 49 larger geographic areas that include between 20,000 and 60,000 people and several neighborhoods. 50 Community Plans include the population necessary to support at least one middle or high school. 51 52 The City of San Antonio Unified Development Code provides for development of, and update (every five 53 years) to, neighborhood and community plans.  The Downtown Neighborhood Plan was developed as a 54 component to the Citys Comprehensive Master Plan and was adopted on May 13, 1999 (City of San
1 Antonio 1999).  All three sites under consideration are included within the boundaries of the original 2 Downtown Neighborhood Plan. 3 4 The purpose of the Downtown Neighborhood Plan was to identify proposed land uses, potential housing 5 development areas, transportation systems, economic development initiatives, urban design guidelines 6 as well as pedestrian and open space connections.  In 1999, more than 800 stakeholders attended 13 7 public meetings in the development of the plan, which serves as a guide for future growth and 8 development.  The plan has been consulted by City departments and agencies when considering policy 9 development and capital projects.  The land use plan in the document also served as a guide for the 10 comprehensive rezoning of the Central Business District.  The Downtown Neighborhood Plan classifies 11 the Hemisfair Park area as a Government/Educational land use and recommends the continuation of this 12 areas use as a Special Events District.  However, no further recommendations specific to the Hemisfair 13 Park area were addressed in the Downtown Neighborhood Plan.  As such, the Hemisfair Park Area 14 Master Plan was developed as an update and in support of specific goals identified in the Downtown 15 Neighborhood Plan with a specific plan to develop the Hemisfair Park area as a regional community 16 asset. The Hemisfair Park Area Master Plan was adopted by the City Council on March 25, 2004 as an 17 update to the Downtown Neighborhood Plan (City of San Antonio 2004). 18 19 In summary, the adopted (1999) Downtown Neighborhood Plan provides for envisioned land uses within 20 19 districts  (A through S) within the downtown area. The Hemisfair Park Area Master Plan (2004) 21 provides an updated and adopted land use plan specific to the Hemisfair Park and immediately 22 surrounding area. Detailed land use data specific to each of the three sites under consideration is 23 provided below. 24
25 3.5.1 River Site 26 27 The River Site is currently zoned by the City of San Antonio as D RIO-3  Downtown.  Surrounding 28 zoning to the north is designated as D and D RIO-3.  Land to the immediate south across East Durango 29 Boulevard is designated DH RIO-4 and is comprised of the Arsenal Historic District.  Lands to the 30 immediate east and west are designated D RIO-3. 31 32 According to the adopted 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the River Site is within District J. District J 33 is the Lower River District, and was envisioned as predominantly a mid-rise mixed use neighborhood that 34 has the San Antonio River Walk as the neighborhood focal point.  Durango is envisioned as developing 35 as a mixed use, mid-rise corridor with parking facilities and hotels with ground floor retail.  Mid-rise 36 includes up to 5-stories with a maximum of 50 units per gross acre. 37 38 Surrounding land use to the north, east, and west is also within District J with similar envisioned land 39 uses.  To the south, across East Durango Boulevard, lands are within District K.  District K is King 40 William, envisioned as single family and duplex housing at a maximum density of 12 units per gross acre. 41 Continued preservation was also recommended within the historic district.  Maximum densities of 40 units 42 per gross acre along low-rise mixed use corridors along South Alamo and South St. Marys Streets were 43 anticipated. 44
45 3.5.2 Hemisfair Site 46 47 The Hemisfair Site is currently zoned by the City of San Antonio as D H HS.  Immediate surrounding 48 zoning to the north is D H HS RIO-3.  Land to the immediate south across East Durango Boulevard is 49 designated as O2 H and RM4 H.  Lands to the immediate east and west are designated by the City as D 50 H HS. The area comprising the Hemisfair Site, north of East Durango Boulevard, falls within the 51 Hemisfair Historic District.  The area immediately south of the site, across East Durango Boulevard, is 52 within the Lavaca Historic District. 53 54 According to the adopted 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Hemisfair Site is within District H 55 (Government/Educational).  District H is the Special Events District, an area envisioned with the
1 continuation of Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center activities, federal offices, Institute of Texan 2 Cultures and the Alamodome.  The community identified this district as one appropriate location to be 3 considered for any future major sporting facilities.   4 5 Surrounding land use to the north, east, and west is also within District H with similar envisioned land 6 uses.  Lands to the south, across East Durango Boulevard is within District I according to the 1999 7 Downtown Neighborhood Plan.  District I (Residential) is the Lavaca Neighborhood/Victoria Courts area. 8 This area was envisioned with infill and rehabilitation of single family and duplex housing at a maximum 9 density of 12 units per gross acre to maintain Lavaca neighborhood character.  Redevelopment of 10 Victoria Courts into mixed income housing that supports residential and office developments and 11 integrates into adjacent neighborhood street pattern and character was also considered.  Durango 12 Boulevard (the northern edge of Victoria Courts) was envisioned as mixed use, low-to-mid-rise corridor 13 with low-rise development at 3-stories and 40 units per gross acre and mid-rise at 5-stores and 50 units 14 per gross acre.  South Presa was viewed as an additional mixed use low-rise corridor. 15 16 As mentioned earlier in this section, as an update to the 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the 17 Hemisfair Park Area Master Plan was developed in 2004 with a more detailed study of the Hemisfair Park 18 area. The Hemisfair Site under consideration is within this area.  As part of the update, six Plan Areas 19 were established by geographic boundaries that related to the desired future uses within each area.  The 20 Hemisfair Site under consideration is within Plan Area 5 - Boulevard North.  The 2004 update notes that 21 the north side of East Durango Boulevard serves as a gateway to Hemisfair Park along the pedestrian 22 access points.  As such, it is important that the open space areas be treated as a continuum around any 23 physical structures of the Boulevard North Area, so that the function of Hemisfair Park will be visually 24 accessible to pedestrian and vehicular traffic along East Durango Boulevard. The 2004 update provided 25 four recommendations/goals for the Boulevard North area: 26 27  Coordinate with the GSA on planned relocation of the Federal Courthouse and Training Facility 28  Explore opportunities for adaptive re-use of federal facilities 29  Extend park area around buildings to East Durango Boulevard 30  Provide adequate, convenient parking for employees and visitors 31 32 Although the adopted land use plan detailed in the 2004 update continues the 1999 land use designation 33 of the area as Government/Educational, the plan does provide conceptual recommendations with 34 regards to possible pedestrian access points, gateway areas, and parking.  Specific to the Hemisfair Site 35 under consideration, the 2004 update identifies the site as parking and the area between the site and the 36 existing Federal Building as a possible gateway and pedestrian access point to Hemisfair Park.  The 2004 37 adopted land use plan also designates all immediately surrounding areas as Government/Educational. 38 This includes the area south of East Durango Boulevard. 39
40 3.5.3 Police Headquarters Site41 42 The Police Headquarters Site is currently zoned by the City of San Antonio as D  Downtown. 43 Surrounding zoning to the north, south, and east is also designated as Downtown.  Land to the immediate 44 west, across Santa Rosa is designated by the City as C-2  Commercial. 45 46 According to the adopted 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Police Headquarters Site is within 47 District Q.  District Q is the San Pedro Creek District, and was envisioned as Mixed Use neighborhood 48 along San Pedro Creek linear park that has active recreational facilities and a historic trail.  Development 49 of community, educational, hotel and recreational facilities in areas along IH-35 was anticipated.  The 50 redesign of Romana Plaza is also considered as a unique concept within this district. Immediate 51 surrounding land use in all directions is also within District Q with similar envisioned land uses. 52 53 54 55
1 3.6 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING 2 3 Traffic and Transportation4 5 The City of San Antonio, Public Works Transportation Group serves the citizens of San Antonio by 6 encouraging the safe and efficient movement of people and goods through a well designed, operated and 7 maintained, multi-modal transportation network of City streets and highways.  It is the mission of the 8 Transportation Group to facilitate the orderly development of San Antonio and to provide the best 9 possible services to citizens and visitors.  The Transportation Group is divided into four sections: 10 11  Traffic Operations 12  Traffic Engineering 13  Neighborhood Traffic Engineering 14  Traffic Management 15 16 The Traffic Engineering Section is responsible for issuing permits for temporary street closures, collecting 17 and maintaining traffic count data, performing traffic studies, as well as a variety of other related 18 functions.  The Traffic Engineering Section was also responsible for conducting Traffic Impact Analysis 19 (TIA); however, this function is now handled by the Development Service Department within the City. 20 21 Street Classifications 22 23 In an effort to facilitate effective and efficient movement of vehicles and goods in San Antonio as well as 24 to plan for future growth and improvements, the City Planning Department develops and maintains a 25 Major Thoroughfare Plan (Ordinance 98282).  The Major Thoroughfare Plan (City of San Antonio 2004a) 26 is consistent with and implements various portions of the Citys Master Plan.  The Thoroughfare Plan 27 classifies roads in the City into several standard road classifications.  Within the downtown area (Central 28 Business District), roads are listed as falling within the following five types: 29 30  Primary Arterial Type A 31  Primary Arterial Type B 32  Secondary Arterial Type A 33  Secondary Arterial Type B 34  Arterial Type C 35 36 Primary Arterial.  A primary arterial street connects two or more sub regions, provides secondary 37 connections outside cities, and complements freeways in high volume corridors.  Primary arterial streets 38 provide access to freeways, other principal arterials, and high volume collectors, but have no direct land 39 access except for major traffic generators.  The level of accessibility for a primary arterial street is defined 40 as medium distance to long trips at high to moderate speeds within the urban area and express transit 41 trips. The types (A, B, and C) are a function of the amount of right-of-way required. 42 43 Secondary Arterial.  A secondary arterial street connects adjacent sub regions and activity centers with 44 sub regions.  Secondary arterial streets provide access to freeways, principal arterial streets, other arterial 45 streets, and collector streets.  Secondary arterial streets have restricted direct land access.  The level of 46 accessibility for a secondary arterial street is defined as medium to short trips at moderate to low speeds 47 and local transit trips. The types (A, B, and C) are a function of the amount of right-of-way required. 48 49 Traffic Studies and Counts 50 51 Periodically, the City Transportation Group conducted traffic studies that involve the collection and 52 analysis of traffic data to aid engineers in their decision-making and planning processes.  Traffic studies 53 provide historical information about roadways, they aid in planning improvements in a particular area, and
1 they help to identify problems and their level of severity.  Traffic studies generally involve one or more of
2 the following:
3
4  Collecting traffic counts (volume, speed, vehicle classifications, turning movement counts, etc.)
5  Reviewing accident data
6  Field investigations
7
8 Traffic counts are collected by the City using battery-powered traffic counters with road tube sensors.
9 Although count data is usually not available immediately adjacent to a given location (i.e., the three sites 10 under consideration here), the data is useful in identifying the existing conditions (as of a particular date) 11 along a particular roadway or at a particular intersection within the City that is nearby or in the vicinity of a 12 location.  The most current traffic count data published by the City is October 10, 2007.  Available traffic 13 count data (volumes) within the vicinity of the three sites under consideration is provided below (Table 314 6).15 16 Table 3-6. October 2007 City of San Antonio Published Traffic Count Data Summary.
Major Street  Location  Minor Street  Direction  Date Counted  Volume  Site Relevance
Durango  East of  South Flores Street.  Westbound  March 2007  9,307  River Site Police Headquarters Site
Durango  West of  South Flores Street  Eastbound  March 2007  8,277  River Site Police Headquarters Site
Santa Rosa  South of  East Commerce Street  Northbound  August 2007  8,089  Police Headquarters Site
Santa Rosa  North of  East Commerce Street  Southbound  August 2007  4,881  Police Headquarters Site
17 Source: City of San Antonio 2007c 18
19 3.6.1 River Site 20 21 East Durango Boulevard, which forms the southern boundary of the River Site is classified in the Major 22 Thoroughfare Plan as a Primary Arterial (Type B) street.  Dwyer Avenue which currently bisects the site in 23 a north-south direction and South Main Avenue which forms the western boundary of the site are both 24 classified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as Primary Arterial (Type A) streets.  East Durango Boulevard is 25 four lanes (two in each direction) with a vegetated center median and turn lanes.  Dwyer Avenue and 26 South Main Avenue both have two lanes.   27
28 3.6.2 Hemisfair Site 29 30 East Durango Boulevard, which fronts the Hemisfair Site, is classified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as 31 a Primary Arterial (Type B) street.  East Durango Boulevard is four lanes (two in each direction) with a 32 vegetated center median and turn lanes. 33
34 3.6.3 Police Headquarters Site35 36 South Santa Rosa Street, which forms the western boundary of the Police Headquarters Site, is classified 37 in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as a Primary Arterial (Type A) street.  West Nueva Street, which forms the 38 northern boundary of the site, is classified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan as a Arterial (Type C) street. 39 South Santa Rosa Street is six lanes (three in each direction) with a vegetated center median and turn 40 lanes.  West Nueva Street is two lanes in each direction. 41 42 Parking43 44 The City of San Antonio, through its Department of Downtown Operations, operates, maintains, and 45 enforces all on-street parking meters and off-street parking spaces under the Citys control in downtown 46 San Antonio.  The parking space inventory consists of 6,472 parking spaces in surface lots and multi
1 level garages, 2,040 regular parking meters, and 60 event meters for events at the Alamodome (City of 2 San Antonio 2007d). 3 4 Of the five multi-level parking structures operated by the City, none are within reasonable walking 5 distance from the three sites under consideration.  Metered on-street parking is available at the Hemisfair 6 site along East Durango Boulevard.  Metered parking is also available at the River Site along Aubrey 7 Street, Dwyer Avenue, South Main Avenue, and along Old Guilbeau Street.  The closest metered parking 8 at the Police Headquarters Site can be found to the north of the site along South Laredo Street.   9 10 There is one City run surface parking lot (Durango South Federal Lot  700 East Durango) adjacent to the 11 Hemisfair Site on the west side of East Durango Boulevard.  The lot contains roughly 130 parking spaces. 12 There is additional parking for roughly 300 vehicles on the west side of East Durango Boulevard 13 immediately adjacent to the City lot.  There are no City run surface parking lots in the immediate vicinity of 14 the River Site and one surface parking lot immediately adjacent (north) to the Police Headquarters Site on 15 the north side of West Nueva Street (Dolorosa Lot  Dolorosa at Santa Rosa).  The lot contains roughly 16 170 parking spaces.  The Hemisfair Site under consideration contains parking for roughly 110 vehicles for 17 the adjacent Federal Building.  The River Site has existing parking space available for more than 250 18 vehicles, and the Police Headquarters Site has parking available for more than 300 vehicles. 19
20 3.7 AIR QUALITY 21 22 Federal regulations (40 CFR 81) have defined Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs), or airsheds, for the 23 entire United States.  AQCRs are based on population and topographic criteria for groups of counties 24 within a state, or counties from multiple states that share a common geographical or pollutant 25 concentration characteristic.  Bexar County is located within AQCR 217  the Metropolitan San Antonio 26 Intrastate AQCR.  Bexar County and the San Antonio area is listed by the USEPA as being in27 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  San Antonio and Bexar County are still subject to the 128 hour ozone standard.  The San Antonio region violated federal air quality standards for ground-level 29 ozone based on ozone measurements recorded during the 2001 to 2007 averaging period.  In 2002, an 30 Early Action Compact agreement signed by local elected officials and submitted to the federal 31 government gave the San Antonio region an opportunity to reduce pollution based on voluntary strategies 32 that are appropriate for the region.  As part of the Early Action Compact, local leaders agreed to 33 implement voluntary strategies to clean the air using a quicker timeline than would normally occur when 34 areas violate federal standards and are designated nonattainment.  The Early Action Compact defers 35 nonattainment status and provides relief from federal regulatory requirements associated with a 36 nonattainment designation until 2008 (Alamo Area Council of Governments [AACOG] 2007). 37
38 3.8 NOISE 39 40 Average acceptable day-night sound pressure levels fall in a range between 50 dB in quiet suburban 41 areas to 70 dB in very noisy urban areas (USEPA 1974).  All three sites under consideration would fall 42 within this range given the urbanized environment.  There are no schools, churches, or hospitals within 43 250 feet of any of the sites.  Other affected public receptors are limited to public buildings, parks, and 44 historic buildings that abut or nearly abut the properties.  Residential neighbors/neighborhoods do not 45 directly abut any of the sites.  46
47 3.9 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 48 49 As part of this EA, a Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Assessment was conducted of all three 50 sites currently under consideration for the potential construction of a new Federal Courthouse in 51 downtown San Antonio (GSA 2008).  The detailed report is provided in Appendix E with a summary of the 52 findings included in the following sections. 53 54 55
1 3.9.1 River Site 2 3 The River Site contains two historic-age architectural properties that may be eligible for nomination to the 4 NRHP. The first is located at 111 Aubrey Street and is a Queen Anne style one-story, hipped roof frame 5 residence with a gabled front bay.  The porch has a turned spindle frieze and spindle balustrade, and 6 turned posts with angular scrolls.  The residence is in excellent condition.  The second is located at 408 7 Dwyer and is a Queen Anne/Colonial Revival style two-story, brick, L-plan residence with projecting front 8 entrance bay.  The building, currently used as an office, is a good example of the style, having a 9 pyramidal roof with gables and dormers and a recessed entrance porch with round arched openings.   10 11 A number of historic-age, or NRHP-eligible buildings, as well as several NRHP-listed properties and a 12 small portion of the King William Historic District are located in the half-block APE.  Located just east of13 the site and across the river is the KWEX TV Station that was recommended eligible in a previous study. 14 To the south across Durango Boulevard is the U.S. San Antonio Arsenal, which is listed in the NRHP, and 15 two houses listed in neighborhood surveys.  One of the three residential structures, 122 Woodward 16 Street, to the north is also considered eligible for the NRHP.  The two last historic properties are 432 and 17 442 Dwyer Avenue.  Both buildings have been identified as being historically significant by the San 18 Antonio Zoning Commission and designated significant by the San Antonio City Council.  Several 19 commercial structures are located within the APE west of the River Site.  These include three one-story 20 buildings that probably date to the 1930s, but have been sufficiently altered by the addition of large plate 21 glass windows on their primary facades that they appear to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP.  The 500 22 block of South Main Avenue on the east side of the street is the former location of property owned by 23 Francois Guilbeau and was the site of a landmark residence and slave quarters.  The house site is now 24 the location of a parking lot.  Guilbeau served briefly as mayor in 1841 and as an alderman in 1854 and 25 1855. In 1842, he was appointed vice consul in Texas by the French government.  His estate on South 26 Main was a San Antonio landmark until the house was demolished in 1952.   27 28 Additionally, near surface and deeply buried intact archeological deposits, particularly associated with the 29 mid-nineteenth century development of the area, may exist at this location and their significance would 30 require determination. 31
32 3.9.2 Hemisfair Site 33 34 The Hemisfair Site and the half-block APE contain one property, the Institute of Texan Cultures, that was 35 recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2002 under Criterion A because it has provided 36 important cultural-studies work within the state of Texas and under Criterion Consideration G because 37 of achieving significance within the last 50 years.  The general area of the Hemisfair location lies within a 38 grant made in the early nineteenth century to Miguel Arciniega, but it appears that no development of the 39 property occurred prior to the mid-to-late nineteenth century when it became heavily developed with 40 residential structures.  This remained the same until the urban renewal initiatives in the mid-twentieth 41 century and the work in preparation for Hemisfair 68 destroyed most of these structures and this area in 42 general. 43 44 Considering the impacts to the surface and near surface due to demolition of structures, leveling of lots, 45 installation of underground utilities, widening of roads, and cutting and filling for construction, the potential 46 for intact, significant archeological deposits at the Hemisfair Site is extremely low. 47
48 3.9.3 Police Headquarters Site49 50 The Police Headquarters Site does not contain any properties that appear to be eligible for nomination to 51 the NRHP. However, the half-block APE contains several structures that might be age-eligible only, and 52 the site abuts the Main and Military Plazas Historic District and the Casa Navarro State Historic Site. 53 South and east of the site are buildings owned by Bill Miller Barbecue.  The building on the south side of 54 this site was recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in 2006 due to alterations that had 55 occurred in the past 50 years.  The building on the east side of the site and San Pedro Creek at 301
1 South Flores appears to date to the 1920s with alterations dating from the 1940s or 1950s.  The core of 2 the building is a good example of early twentieth-century industrial architecture that has been recorded in 3 a neighborhood survey, and subsequent alterations may have been completed by the early 1950s; further 4 research would be necessary to establish a building chronology and to assess NRHP eligibility.  The 5 building at 331 South Flores appears to be associated with the automotive industry that developed along 6 this portion of South Flores in the 1920s and 1930s.  It appears to retain integrity to be considered for 7 inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion C.   In addition, research to establish the relationship of this 8 building and its associations with early automotive dealer Jack W. Neal may also warrant inclusion under 9 Criterion B.  Additionally, the channelization of San Pedro Creek on this side of the site is considered one 10 of the last traditional engineering solutions to flood control in San Antonio, and even though there have 11 been some alterations and repairs, it may be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.  North of the Police 12 Headquarters Site, at 228 South Laredo, is the Casa Navarro State Historic Site, which is listed on the 13 NRHP and is to be administered by the Texas Historical Commission subsequent to transfer from the 14 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.  A County warehouse located at 131 West Nueva is within the 15 boundaries of the Main and Military Plazas Historic District, but was identified as an intrusive element in 16 the District. 17 18 Considering surface and near-surface impacts due to demolition of structures, leveling of lots, installation 19 of utilities, widening of roads, channelization of San Pedro Creek, and cutting and filling for construction, 20 the potential for intact, significant archeological deposits at the Police Headquarters Site is extremely low.
1 SECTION 4.0
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3 4 5 This section of the EA forms the basis for the comparison of the alternatives identified earlier in Section
6 2.3. The organization of this section mirrors that of Section 3.0 and describes the likely environmental 7 consequences of taking no action and those associated with construction and operation of a new Federal 8 Courthouse at either the River Site, Hemisfair Site 2, or the Police Headquarters Site.  The likely9 environmental consequences have been summarized earlier in Section 2.4 (see Table 2-3).    10
11 4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 12
13 4.1.1 No Action Alternative 14 15 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant hazardous materials and/or waste 16 impacts.  Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. 17 Federal Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the 18 adjacent Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction 19 activities would occur.  As a result, no significant hazardous materials and/or waste impacts would be 20 anticipated. 21
22 4.1.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  23 24 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant hazardous materials and/or waste impacts. As 25 discussed in Section 3.1, there are no existing hazardous materials and/or waste issues associated with 26 the River Site. The results of the Phase I ESA conducted at the site concluded that there are no RECs 27 associated with the site.  Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1, all demolition/construction debris 28 would be recycled or disposed of at an approved landfill in accordance with all applicable federal, state, 29 and local laws and regulations.  Similarly, any hazardous wastes generated during construction activities 30 would be disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations.  As a result, no 31 significant hazardous materials and/or waste impacts would be anticipated. 32
33 4.1.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  34 35 Similar to the previous alternative, implementing this alternative would result in no significant hazardous 36 materials and/or waste impacts.  As discussed in Section 3.1, there are no existing hazardous materials 37 and/or waste issues associated with the Hemisfair Site.  The results of the Phase I ESA conducted at the 38 site concluded that there are no RECs associated with the site.  Additionally, as discussed in Section 39 2.3.2.1, all demolition/construction debris would be recycled or disposed of at an approved landfill in 40 accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.  Similarly, any hazardous 41 wastes generated during construction activities would be disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, 42 and local regulations.  As a result, no significant hazardous materials and/or waste impacts would be 43 anticipated. 44
45 4.1.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  46 47 Similar to the previous two alternatives, implementing this alternative would result in no significant 48 hazardous materials and/or waste impacts.  As discussed in Section 3.1, there are no existing hazardous 49 materials and/or waste issues associated with the Police Headquarters Site.  The results of the Phase I 50 ESA conducted at the site concluded that there are no RECs associated with the site.  Additionally, as51 discussed in Section 2.3.2.1, all demolition/construction debris would be recycled or disposed of at an 52 approved landfill in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 53 Similarly, any hazardous wastes generated during construction activities would be disposed of in 1 accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations.  As a result, no significant hazardous materials 2 and/or waste impacts would be anticipated. 3
4 4.2 SOCIOECONOMICS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE)
 5
6 4.2.1 No Action Alternative 7 8 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant socioeconomic (including 9 environmental justice) impacts.  Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the 10 existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse. District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals 11 Service would remain at the adjacent Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary 12 and no construction activities would occur. As a result, no significant socioeconomic (including 13 environmental justice) impacts would be anticipated. 14
15 4.2.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  16 17 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant socioeconomic (including environmental 18 justice) impacts.  Implementing this alternative would result in no new measurable long-term employment 19 opportunities, however, short-term employment changes could be realized during construction activities. 20 A limited short-term economic gain could be realized by construction worker food and beverage sales and 21 hotel accommodations. Additional short-term economic gains could be realized in the form of 22 construction materials purchasing and equipment/vehicle rental.  Although not significant, long-term 23 development and operation at this site by the federal government would remove it from the tax roll, 24 resulting in a minor decrease in tax revenue.  Long-term socioeconomic benefits could be realized if the 25 development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the area.  As 26 discussed in Section 3.2, the River Site is within USCB Block Group 7 which is considered by the USCB 27 as an area of low-income.  However, construction and operation of a new Federal Courthouse at this site 28 would not negatively affect these populations.  There are no low-income households or families below the 29 poverty level residing at the site.  As a result, no environmental justice impacts would be anticipated. 30 Some minor, temporary impacts could be realized in the form of construction noise, traffic, etc. (see 31 Section 4.6 and 4.8), but the impacts would not be long-term and would not be significant in nature. 32 33 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to tourism or the hospitality industry in 34 the immediate surrounding area or greater San Antonio.  As mentioned earlier, long-term benefits could 35 be realized if the development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the 36 area. Short-term impacts in the form of construction noise, traffic rerouting, pedestrian access 37 restrictions, etc. (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), could inconvenience tourists visiting nearby 38 attractions/locations, but, as mentioned, the impacts would be short-term in nature and would not be 39 significant with regards to overall tourist activity or the economic benefits realized from tourism in the 40 downtown area. 41
42 4.2.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  43 44 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant socioeconomic (including environmental 45 justice) impacts.  Implementing this alternative would result in no new measurable long-term employment 46 opportunities, however, short-term employment changes could be realized during construction activities. 47 A limited short-term economic gain could be realized by construction worker food and beverage sales and 48 hotel accommodations. Additional short-term economic gains could be realized in the form of 49 construction materials purchasing and equipment/vehicle rental.  Long-term socioeconomic benefits could 50 be realized if the development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the 51 area. As discussed in Section 3.2, the Hemisfair Site is within USCB Block Group 3 which is considered 52 by the USCB as an area of low-income.  However, construction and operation of a new Federal 53 Courthouse at this site would not negatively affect these populations.  There are no low-income 54 households or families below the poverty level residing at the site.  As a result, no environmental justice 55 impacts would be anticipated.  Some minor, temporary impacts could be realized in the form of
1 construction noise, traffic, etc. (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), but the impacts would not be long-term and 2 would not be significant in nature. 3 4 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to tourism or the hospitality industry in 5 the immediate surrounding area or greater San Antonio.  As mentioned earlier, long-term benefits could 6 be realized if the development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the 7 area. Short-term impacts in the form of construction noise, traffic rerouting, pedestrian access 8 restrictions, etc. (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), could inconvenience tourists visiting nearby 9 attractions/locations, but, as mentioned, the impacts would be short-term in nature and would not be 10 significant with regards to overall tourist activity or the economic benefits realized from tourism in the 11 downtown area. 12
13 4.2.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  14 15 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant socioeconomic (including environmental 16 justice) impacts.  Implementing this alternative would result in no new measurable long-term employment 17 opportunities, however, short-term employment changes could be realized during construction activities. 18 A limited short-term economic gain could be realized by construction worker food and beverage sales and 19 hotel accommodations. Additional short-term economic gains could be realized in the form of 20 construction materials purchasing and equipment/vehicle rental.  Long-term socioeconomic benefits could 21 be realized if the development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the 22 area.   As discussed in Section 3.2, the Police Headquarters Site is within USCB Block Group 7 which is 23 considered by the USCB as an area of low-income. However, construction and operation of a new 24 Federal Courthouse at this site would not negatively affect these populations. There are no low-income 25 households or families below the poverty level residing at the site.  As a result, no environmental justice 26 impacts would be anticipated.  Some minor, temporary impacts could be realized in the form of 27 construction noise, traffic, etc. (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), but the impacts would not be long-term and 28 would not be significant in nature. 29 30 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to tourism or the hospitality industry in 31 the immediate surrounding area or greater San Antonio.  There are no major tourist attractions in the 32 immediate vicinity of the Police Headquarters Site. As mentioned earlier, long-term benefits could be 33 realized if the development were to serve as a catalyst for future development/redevelopment in the area. 34 Short-term impacts in the form of construction noise, traffic rerouting, pedestrian access restrictions, etc. 35 (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), could inconvenience tourists traversing the area, but, as mentioned, the 36 impacts would be short-term in nature and would not be significant with regards to overall tourist activity 37 or the economic benefits realized from tourism in the downtown area.  38
39 4.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 40
41 4.3.1 No Action Alternative 42 43 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant impacts to public services and 44 utilities. Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. 45 Federal Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the 46 adjacent Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction 47 activities would occur.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 48
49 4.3.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  50 51 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to public services and utilities.  As 52 mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, construction activities could require temporary lane closures and/or 53 temporary traffic/pedestrian rerouting.  This could include the temporary alteration of bus routes and the 54 temporary closure of existing nearby bus stops.  Should this be necessary, coordination would be 55 conducted with the City of San Antonio and the VIA Metropolitan Transit regarding the temporary bus
1 reroutes and/or bus stop closures.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. The long2 term effects of development of the site could be an increase in the frequency of buses and/or additional 3 nearby bus stops. 4 5 Construction and operation of a new Federal Courthouse would have no impact on existing police and fire 6 services or their ability to serve the downtown area or the greater San Antonio area.  Other than 7 temporary noise, traffic rerouting, etc. associated with construction activities (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), no 8 impacts would be anticipated at SAISD facilities or other educational institutions in the area.  There would 9 be no new influx of students and no new demand on educational facilities in the area.  Although both 10 short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the new Federal Courthouse would result in 11 an increase in demand for utilities, the demand would not be significant and could be adequately 12 accommodated with existing infrastructure.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 13
14 4.3.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  15 16 Similar to the previous alternative, implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to 17 public services and utilities.  As mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, construction activities could require 18 temporary lane closures and/or temporary traffic/pedestrian rerouting.  This could include the temporary 19 alteration of bus routes and the temporary closure of existing nearby bus stops.  Should this be 20 necessary, coordination would be conducted with the City of San Antonio and the VIA Metropolitan 21 Transit regarding the temporary bus reroutes and/or bus stop closures.  As a result, no significant impacts 22 would be anticipated.  The long-term effects of development of the site could be an increase in the 23 frequency of buses and/or additional nearby bus stops. 24 25 Construction and operation of a new Federal Courthouse would have no impact on existing police and fire 26 services or their ability to serve the downtown area or the greater San Antonio area.  Other than 27 temporary noise, traffic rerouting, etc. associated with construction activities (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), no 28 impacts would be anticipated at SAISD facilities or other educational institutions in the area.  There would 29 be no new influx of students and no new demand on educational facilities in the area.  Although both 30 short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the new Federal Courthouse would result in 31 an increase in demand for utilities, the demand would not be significant and could be adequately 32 accommodated with existing infrastructure.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 33
34 4.3.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  35 36 Similar to the previous two alternatives, implementing this alternative would result in no significant 37 impacts to public services and utilities.  As mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, construction activities 38 could require temporary lane closures and/or temporary traffic/pedestrian rerouting.  This could include 39 the temporary alteration of bus routes and the temporary closure of existing nearby bus stops.  Should 40 this be necessary, coordination would be conducted with the City of San Antonio and the VIA 41 Metropolitan Transit regarding the temporary bus reroutes and/or bus stop closures.  As a result, no 42 significant impacts would be anticipated.  The long-term effects of development of the site could be an 43 increase in the frequency of buses and/or additional nearby bus stops. 44 45 Construction and operation of a new Federal Courthouse would have no impact on existing police and fire 46 services or their ability to serve the downtown area or the greater San Antonio area.  Other than 47 temporary noise, traffic rerouting, etc. associated with construction activities (see Section 4.6 and 4.8), no 48 impacts would be anticipated at SAISD facilities or other educational institutions in the area.  There would 49 be no new influx of students and no new demand on educational facilities in the area.  Although both 50 short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the new Federal Courthouse would result in 51 an increase in demand for utilities, the demand would not be significant and could be adequately 52 accommodated with existing infrastructure.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 53 54 55
1 4.4 HYDROLOGY
2
3 4.4.1 No Action Alternative 4 5 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant hydrologic impacts.  Under the no 6 action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse. 7 District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the adjacent Federal 8 Building. No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction activities would occur. 9 As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 10
11 4.4.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  12 13 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant hydrologic impacts.  As mentioned earlier in 14 Section 3.4, there are no surface water features at the River Site.  The San Antonio River is, however, 15 immediately adjacent to the site (east).  As described earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, the development and 16 implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs would provide measures to eliminate or reduce any 17 potential impacts to surface water quality in the nearby San Antonio River and the Edwards Aquifer.  As 18 mentioned in Section 3.4, the River Site is outside the FEMA defined 100-year flood zone and no 19 structures would be built within the 100-year flood zone.  As a result, no impacts would be anticipated. 20 21 As mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, development of the site would also be done consistent with the 22 newly enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, specifically Section 438 (Stormwater 23 Runoff Requirements for Federal Development Projects), which requires the sponsor of any development 24 or redevelopment project involving a federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet to use 25 site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to 26 the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the 27 temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. 28 29 Preliminary stormwater calculations performed for development of this site indicate an approximate 14 30 percent increase in stormwater output from the site after development.  It should be noted, however, that 31 these calculations were performed on very preliminary information and estimates.  Once a site is chosen 32 and the building and all supporting infrastructure (e.g., walks, drives, etc.) are sited, a detailed calculation 33 would be performed and adjustments made as necessary to comply with the Energy Independence and 34 Security Act of 2007 and any other requirements of the City of San Antonio.  As a result, no impacts 35 would be anticipated.  The preliminary calculations (including assumptions) performed for development of 36 this site are included in Appendix B.    37
38 4.4.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  39 40 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant hydrologic impacts.  As mentioned earlier in 41 Section 3.4, there are no surface water features at the Hemisfair Site.  As described earlier in Section 42 2.3.2.1, a SWPPP (and associated BMPs) would be developed and implemented to provide measures to 43 eliminate or reduce any potential impacts to area surface water quality and the Edwards Aquifer.  As 44 mentioned in Section 3.4, the Hemisfair Site is outside the FEMA defined 100-year flood zone and no 45 structures would be built within the 100-year flood zone.  As a result, no impacts would be anticipated. 46 47 Similar to the previous alternative, development of the site would also be done consistent with the newly 48 enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, specifically Section 438 (Stormwater Runoff 49 Requirements for Federal Development Projects), which requires the sponsor of any development or 50 redevelopment project involving a federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet to use 51 site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to 52 the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the 53 temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. 54 1 Preliminary stormwater calculations performed for development of this site indicate an approximate 25 2 percent increase in stormwater output from the site after development.  It should be noted, however, that 3 these calculations were performed on very preliminary information and estimates.  Once a site is chosen 4 and the building and all supporting infrastructure (e.g., walks, drives, etc.) are sited, a detailed calculation 5 would be performed and adjustments made as necessary to comply with the Energy Independence and 6 Security Act of 2007 and any other requirements of the City of San Antonio.  As a result, no impacts 7 would be anticipated.  The preliminary calculations (including assumptions) performed for development of 8 this site are included in Appendix B.  9
10 4.4.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  11 12 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant hydrologic impacts.  As mentioned earlier in 13 Section 3.4, there are no surface water features at the Police Headquarters Site.  San Pedro Creek is, 14 however, immediately adjacent to the site (east).  As described earlier in Section 2.3.2.1, the 15 development and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs would provide measures to 16 eliminate or reduce any potential impacts to surface water quality in the nearby San Pedro Creek and the 17 Edwards Aquifer.  As mentioned in Section 3.4, the Police Headquarters Site is outside the FEMA defined 18 100-year flood zone and no structures would be built within the 100-year flood zone.  As a result, no 19 impacts would be anticipated. 20 21 Similar to the previous alternatives, development of the site would also be done consistent with the newly 22 enacted Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, specifically Section 438 (Stormwater Runoff 23 Requirements for Federal Development Projects), which requires the sponsor of any development or 24 redevelopment project involving a federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet to use 25 site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to 26 the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the 27 temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. 28 29 Preliminary stormwater calculations performed for development of this site indicate no increase in 30 stormwater output from the site after development.  It should be noted, however, that these calculations 31 were performed on very preliminary information and estimates.  Once a site is chosen and the building 32 and all supporting infrastructure (e.g., walks, drives, etc.) are sited, a detailed calculation would be 33 performed and adjustments made as necessary to comply with the Energy Independence and Security 34 Act of 2007 and any other requirements of the City of San Antonio.  As a result, no impacts would be 35 anticipated.  The preliminary calculations (including assumptions) performed for development of this site 36 are included in Appendix B. 37
38 4.5 LAND USE AND ZONING 39
40 4.5.1 No Action Alternative 41 42 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant land use or zoning impacts.  Under 43 the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal 44 Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the adjacent 45 Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction activities would 46 occur. As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 47
48 4.5.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  49 50 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant land use or zoning impacts.  As mentioned 51 earlier in Section 3.5, the River Site and immediately surrounding area are zoned by the City of San 52 Antonio as D RIO (3 and 4).  The Downtown designation (D) provides for concentrated downtown retail, 53 service, office, and mixed uses.  Development of a new Federal Courthouse at this site would appear to 54 be consistent with this designation.  The River Overlay District designation (RIO) provides for the 55 protection, preservation, and enhancement of the San Antonio River by establishing design standards
1 and guidelines for properties located near the river.  Since the design of the new Federal Courthouse 2 would be consistent with prevailing City of San Antonio Unified Development Code and Development 3 Standards of the area (see Section 2.3.2.1), no zoning impacts would be anticipated.   4 5 According to the adopted Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the River Site is within District J (Lower River 6 District).  Surrounding land use to the north, east, and west is also designated as being within District J. 7 District J is described as being envisioned as predominantly a mid-rise (up to 5-stories) mixed use 8 neighborhood that has the San Antonio River Walk as a focal point.  Durango Boulevard, which forms the 9 southern boundary of the River Site, is envisioned as developing as a mixed use, mid-rise (up to 510 stories) corridor with parking facilities and hotels with ground floor retail.  Although not significant, it 11 appears that development of a new Federal Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the River Site 12 could be in conflict with the adopted land use vision for site and the immediate surrounding area. 13 14 Surrounding land use to the south, across East Durango Boulevard, is designated as being within District 15 K. District K is the King William District, envisioned as single family and duplex housing with continued 16 preservation of the Historic District and low-rise, mixed use corridors.  Again, although not significant, it 17 appears that development of a new Federal Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the River Site 18 could be in conflict with the adopted land use vision for the area immediately to the south across East 19 Durango Boulevard. 20
21 4.5.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  22 23 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant land use or zoning impacts.  As mentioned 24 earlier in Section 3.5, the Hemisfair Site is zoned by the City of San Antonio as D H HS.  Similar to the 25 previous alternative, the Downtown designation (D) provides for concentrated downtown retail, service, 26 office, and mixed uses.  Development of a new Federal Courthouse at this site would appear to be 27 consistent with this designation.  The H HS designation are Historic District designations adopted in order 28 to protect and preserve places and areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and 29 significance.  Since the design of the new Federal Courthouse would be consistent with prevailing City of 30 San Antonio Unified Development Code and Development Standards of the area (see Section 2.3.2.1), 31 no zoning impacts would be anticipated.  Surrounding zoning to the north, east, and west is similar and 32 therefore no conflicts would be anticipated.  Land to the immediate south (Lavaca Historic District), across 33 East Durango Boulevard, is designated as O (Office) and RM (Mixed Residential). 34 35 According to the adopted Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the 2004 Hemisfair Park Are Master Plan 36 update, the Hemisfair Site is within District H (Government/Educational). Surrounding land use to the 37 north, east, and west is also designated as being within District H.    District H is described as the Special 38 Events District, an area envisioned with the continuation of Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center 39 activities, federal offices, Institute of Texan Cultures and the Alamodome.  Based on this designation, it 40 appears that development of a new Federal  Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the 41 Hemisfair Site would be consistent with the adopted land use vision for site and the immediate 42 surrounding area. 43 44 Land to the south, across East Durango Boulevard is within District I according to the adopted Downtown 45 Neighborhood Plan.  District I (Residential) is the Lavaca Neighborhood/Victoria Courts area.  This area 46 was envisioned with infill and rehabilitation of single family and duplex housing.  Durango Boulevard (the 47 northern edge of Victoria Courts) was envisioned as mixed use, low-to-mid-rise corridor with low-rise 48 development at 3-stories and mid-rise at 5-stores.  South Presa was viewed as an additional mixed use 49 low-rise corridor.  Given the existing development adjacent to the Hemisfair Site (Federal Building and 50 John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse and the Spears Training Center) and the designation of the area 51 in both the 1999 Downtown Neighborhood Plan and the 2004 Hemisfair Park Are Master Plan update as 52 Government/Educational, it appears that development of a new Federal courthouse at this site would not 53 be in conflict with surrounding land uses. 54
1 4.5.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  2 3 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant land use or zoning impacts.  Similar to the 4 previous alternatives, the Police Headquarters Site is zoned by the City of San Antonio as D (Downtown). 5 Surrounding zoning to the north, south, and east is also designated as Downtown.  Land to the immediate 6 west, across Santa Rosa is designated by the City as C-2  Commercial.  Development of a new Federal 7 Courthouse at this site would appear to be consistent with the current site and surrounding zoning 8 designations. 9 10 According to the adopted Downtown Neighborhood Plan, the Police Headquarters Site is within District Q 11 (San Pedro Creek District).  Surrounding land use in all directions is also designated as being within the 12 San Pedro Creek District.  District Q is described as being envisioned as Mixed Use neighborhood along 13 San Pedro Creek linear park that has active recreational facilities and a historic trail.  Development of 14 community, educational, hotel and recreational facilities in areas along IH-35 was anticipated.  15 Development of a new Federal Courthouse (as described in Section 2.3.2.1) at the Police Headquarters 16 Site appears to be consistent with the adopted land use vision for site and the immediate surrounding 17 area. 18
19 4.6 TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING 20
21 4.6.1 No Action Alternative 22 23 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant traffic, transportation, or parking 24 impacts.  Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. 25 Federal Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the 26 adjacent Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no new construction or 27 operational activities would occur.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 28
29 4.6.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  30 31 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant traffic, transportation, or parking impacts.  As 32 mentioned earlier in Section 2.3.2.2, development of this site with a new Federal Courthouse could be 33 expected to result in roughly 375 government and employee private vehicles in the immediate vicinity of 34 the site and as many as 100 additional patron/visitor vehicles in the immediate vicinity on a daily basis. 35 The majority of the government and employee private vehicles (as many as 300) would be on the nearby 36 roads for the early morning and late afternoon/early evening commutes to-and-from work and would 37 remain parked (at the developed facility parking) for the majority of the day (with the exception of lunch, or 38 other daytime trips that would be short-term in nature).  The majority of the patron/visitor vehicles would 39 be on the nearby roads in the morning hours, however, patron/visitor vehicles would be expected to 40 come-and-go throughout the duration of the day. 41 42 As mentioned earlier in Section 3.6, the City of San Antonio, Traffic Engineering Section is responsible for 43 conducting TIAs and reviewing TIAs submitted in support of development projects which may potentially 44 increase traffic on existing highways and streets.  A TIA is a report that describes the impacts a proposed 45 development project would have on traffic entering and exiting from that development and on traffic flow 46 on the adjacent street network.  Developers are required to conduct a TIA and submit it with their 47 construction plans for review if a proposed development would generate at least 100 trips during the peak 48 hour (mornings and evenings).  As described in Section 2.3.2.2, operation of a new Federal Courthouse 49 at this site would generate at least 100 trips during the peak hour in the immediate and surrounding 50 vicinity. However, the City of San Antonio, Unified Development Code (35.502) states that traffic 51 patterns and infrastructure within its urban core are established and that there is strong public policy to 52 encourage reinvestment in the Citys downtown areas and to encourage infill development with little 53 opportunity to expand transportation capacity in many areas without destroying the Citys historic built 54 environment.  As such, the City has exempted the Downtown District from the requirement of developers 55 conducting a TIA.  Although development at this site would not require a TIA to be prepared, as described 1 in Section 2.3.2.2, the GSA would conduct a Limited TIA (to be included in the Final EA) and coordinate 2 closely with the City of San Antonio, Traffic Engineering Section with regards to development of the site in 3 an effort to insure minimal impacts to the local street network.  As a result, no significant 4 traffic/transportation impacts would be anticipated.  As described earlier in Section 2.3.2.2, sufficient 5 employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided at the site with the possibility of 6 additional, nearby on-street metered parking (limited in quantity) as well.  Due to security requirements, 7 no on-street metered parking would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility.  As a result, no 8 parking deficiencies/impacts would be anticipated.  9
10 4.6.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  11 12 Similar to the previous alternative, implementing this alternative would result in no significant traffic, 13 transportation, or parking impacts.  Development of the site would be exempt from the need to conduct a 14 TIA (35.502), however, as described in Section 2.3.2.2, the GSA would conduct a Limited TIA (to be 15 included in the Final EA) and coordinate closely with the City of San Antonio, Traffic Engineering Section 16 with regards to development of the site in an effort to insure minimal impacts to the local street network. 17 As a result, no significant traffic/transportation impacts would be anticipated.  As described earlier in 18 Section 2.3.2.2, sufficient employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided at the site and 19 in the existing parking lots across East Durango Boulevard with the possibility of additional, nearby on20 street metered parking (limited in quantity) as well. Due to security requirements, no on-street metered 21 parking would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility.  As a result, no parking deficiencies/ 22 impacts would be anticipated.  23
24 4.6.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  25 26 Similar to the previous alternatives, implementing this alternative would result in no significant traffic, 27 transportation, or parking impacts.  Development of the site would be exempt from the need to conduct a 28 TIA (35.502), however, as described in Section 2.3.2.2, the GSA would conduct a Limited TIA (to be 29 included in the Final EA) and coordinate closely with the City of San Antonio, Traffic Engineering Section 30 with regards to development of the site in an effort to insure minimal impacts to the local street network. 31 As a result, no significant traffic/transportation impacts would be anticipated.  As described earlier in 32 Section 2.3.2.2, sufficient employee and visitor/patron parking capacity would be provided at the site and 33 in the existing parking lot across West Nueva Street with the possibility of additional, nearby on-street 34 metered parking (limited in quantity) as well.  Due to security requirements, no on-street metered parking 35 would be provided immediately adjacent to the facility. As a result, no parking deficiencies/impacts would 36 be anticipated.  37
38 4.7 AIR QUALITY 39
40 4.7.1 No Action Alternative 41 42 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant impacts to air quality.  Under the no 43 action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse. 44 District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the adjacent Federal 45 Building. No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction activities would occur. 46 As a result, there would be no change in ambient air quality conditions and no significant impacts would 47 be anticipated. 48
49 4.7.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  50 51 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to air quality; however, implementation 52 would result in minor, temporary impacts to local air quality.  The primary impact would be directly related 53 to the generation of PM10 at and around the site during the earth moving stages of site construction 54 (grading, utility installation, cut and fill activities).
1 The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is a function of the area of 2 land affected by construction and the level of construction activity.  Uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions 3 from ground-disturbing activities would be estimated at a rate of 80 pounds (lbs) of total suspended 4 particulates (TSP) per acre per day of disturbance (USEPA 1995).  The average PM10 to TSP ratios for 5 top soil removal, aggregate hauling, and cut and fill operations are reported as 0.27 lb of PM10 per lb of 6 soil, 0.23 lb of PM10 per lb of soil, and 0.22 lb of PM10 per lb of soil, respectively (USEPA 1988), or an 7 average of 0.24 lb of PM10 per lb of soil.  Specific information describing the types of construction 8 equipment required for a specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions 9 vary widely from project to project.  For purposes of analysis, these parameters were estimated using 10 established cost-estimating methodologies for construction (Ogershok & Pray 2006).  It was also 11 assumed that the following construction equipment would be used throughout the duration of construction 12 activities:  13 14  Site Preparation15 1 Excavator 16 1 Scraper/Grader 17 1 Compactor Roller 18 1 Bulldozer 19 2 Dump Trucks 20 21  Utilities and Paving 22 1 Frontend Loader 23 1 Backhoe 24 1 Plate Compactor 25 1 Concrete Paver 26 1 Grader 27 28 The grading phase of the proposed development was considered as a worst-case scenario.  It was 29 assumed that the entire five acres would be disturbed (building site and parking areas) over the duration 30 of the project.  The SCREEN3 computer model (developed by the USEPA) was used to estimate the 31 downwind concentrations of PM10, using the following assumptions, illustrated in Figure 4-1.32
PM10 0.24 TSP
average wind speed 9.1 miles per hour
receptor height  4.92 feet
source height  32.8 feet
area of excavation 5 acres
33 34 The predicted maximum PM10 concentration of 57 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3) downwind from 35 the site was compared to the NAAQS PM10 for 24 hours of 150 g/m3. Since the maximum-modeled 36 concentration would be below the NAAQS for particulates, a potential for an elevated local concentration 37 for PM10 would not be anticipated for this temporary activity.  This is contingent on the implementation of 38 the control measures described previously in Section 2.3.2.1.  The grading and construction activities 39 occur near ground level, resulting in PM10 concentrations dropping off rapidly over a short distance.  The 40 USEPA estimates that the effects of fugitive dust from construction activities would be reduced 41 significantly with an effective watering program.  Watering the disturbed area of the construction site twice 42 per day with approximately 3,500 gallons per acre per day would reduce total suspended particulates 43 TSP emissions as much as 50 percent (USEPA 1995).  Due to the very small emission amounts, only 44 limited watering would be necessary during times of peak soil disturbance.  These estimates are 45 averages; actual instantaneous concentrations could be higher or lower based, on local wind conditions. 46
Line Graph that shows the Estimated Downwind Concentration of PM10 and the PM10 Concentration Threshold ar the River Site.
3 Figure 4-1. Estimate of Downwind Concentrations of PM10 at the River Site. 4  5 Emissions from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA-approved emissions 6 factors for heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment (USEPA 1985). The combined 7 construction equipment would release insignificant amounts of NOx, non-methane VOCs, CO, and PM10,8 as shown in the Table 4-1 below.  As a result, the potential for impacts from these emissions is minimal. 9    10 Table 4-1. Emissions from Construction Equipment Exhausts.
1
Criteria Pollutant  Pounds  Tons
Volatile Organic Compounds  854  0.43
Carbon Monoxide  10,188  5.09
Nitrogen Oxides  3,286  1.64
PM10  533  0.27
11 12 During the worst of the construction phase, estimated total emissions for all criteria pollutants are below 13 the regionally significant action levels specified in 30 TAC 101.30 (19,21).  Therefore, the General 14 Conformity Rule does not apply and no significant air quality impacts would be anticipated.  The total 15 annual construction emissions resulting from the implementation of this alternative are presented in Table 16 4-2 and Table 4-3. 17 18 Table 4-2. Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions at the River Site.
Year  PM10 Equipment (tons per year)  PM10 Excavation (tons per year)  Total PM10 Emissions (tons per year)
1  0.27  0.48  0.75
19 20 21
4-11
Table 4-3. Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the River Site.
Year  CO (tons per year)  VOC (tons per year)  NOx (tons per year)  PM10 (tons per year)
1  5.09  0.43  1.64  0.27
2
3 4.7.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  4 5 Similar to the previous alternative, implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to 6 air quality; however, implementation would result in minor, temporary impacts to local air quality.  The 7 primary impact would be directly related to the generation of PM10 at and around the site during the earth 8 moving stages of site construction (grading, utility installation, cut and fill activities).   9
10 As with the previous alternative, the grading phase of the proposed development was considered as a 11 worst-case scenario.  Under this alternative, an approximate area of two acres would be graded and 12 excavated over the duration of the project.  The SCREEN3 computer model (developed by the USEPA) 13 was used to estimate the downwind concentrations of PM10, using the following assumptions, illustrated in
14 15  Figure 4-2.
PM10  0.24 TSP
average wind speed  9.1 miles per hour
receptor height   4.92 feet
source height   32.8 feet
area of excavation  2 acres
16
Line Graph that shows the Estimated Downwind Concentration of PM10 and the PM10 Concentration Threshold ar the Hemisfair Site.
1 The predicted maximum PM10 concentration of 37 g/m3 downwind from the site was compared to the 2 NAAQS PM10 for 24 hours of 150 g/m3. Since the maximum-modeled concentration would be below the 3 NAAQS for particulates, a potential for an elevated local concentration for PM10 would not be anticipated 4 for this temporary activity.  Similar to the previous alternative, this is contingent on the implementation of 5 the control measures described previously.   6 7 During the worst of the construction phase, estimated total emissions for all criteria pollutants are below 8 the regionally significant action levels specified in 30 TAC 101.30 (19,21).  Therefore, the General 9 Conformity Rule does not apply and no significant air quality impacts would be anticipated.  The total 10 annual construction emissions resulting from the implementation of this alternative are presented in Table 11 4-4 and Table 4-5. 12 13 Table 4-4. Estimated Annual PM10 Emissions at the Hemisfair Site.
Year  PM10 Equipment (tons per year)  PM10 Excavation (tons per year)  Total PM10 Emissions (tons per year)
1  0.02  0.01  0.03
14
15 Table 4-5. Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the Hemisfair Site.
Year  CO (tons per year)  VOC (tons per year)  NOx (tons per year)  PM10 (tons per year)
1  3.45  0.29  1.11  0.02
16
17 4.7.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  18 19 Similar to the previous alternatives, implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to 20 air quality; however, implementation would result in minor, temporary impacts to local air quality.  The 21 primary impact would be directly related to the generation of PM10 at and around the site during the earth 22 moving stages of site construction (grading, utility installation, cut and fill activities).   23 24 As with the previous alternatives, the grading phase of the proposed development was considered as a 25 worst-case scenario.  Under this alternative, an approximate area of five acres would be graded and 26 excavated over the duration of the project.  The SCREEN3 computer model (developed by the USEPA) 27 was used to estimate the downwind concentrations of PM10, using the following assumptions, illustrated in 28 Figure 4-3 on the following page. 29
PM10 0.24 TSP
average wind speed 9.1 miles per hour
receptor height  4.92 feet
source height  32.8 feet
area of excavation 5 acres
30 31 The predicted maximum PM10 concentration of 55 g/m3 downwind from the site was compared to the 32 NAAQS PM10 for 24 hours of 150 g/m3. Since the maximum-modeled concentration would be below the 33 NAAQS for particulates, a potential for an elevated local concentration for PM10 would not be anticipated 34 for this temporary activity.  Similar to the previous alternative, this is contingent on the implementation of 35 the control measures described previously.   36 37 During the worst of the construction phase, estimated total emissions for all criteria pollutants are below 38 the regionally significant action levels specified in 30 TAC 101.30 (19,21).  Therefore, the General 39 Conformity Rule does not apply and no significant air quality impacts would be anticipated.  The total 40 annual construction emissions resulting from the implementation of this alternative are presented in Table 41 4-6 and Table 4-7. 42
1
Line Graph that shows the Estimated Downwind Concentration of PM10 and the PM10 Concentration Threshold ar the  Police Headquarters Site.
Year  PM10 Equipment (tons per year)  PM10 Excavation (tons per year)  Total PM10 Emissions (tons per year)
1  0.02  0.24  0.26
7
8 Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions at the Police Headquarters Site.
Year  CO (tons per year)  VOC (tons per year)  NOx (tons per year)  PM10 (tons per year)
1  2.83  0.24  0.91  0.02
9
10 4.8 NOISE 11
12 4.8.1 No Action Alternative 13 14 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant noise impacts.  Under the no action 15 alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. Federal Courthouse.  District 16 court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the adjacent Federal Building. No 17 additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction activities would occur.  As a result, no 18 significant impacts would be anticipated. 19 20 21
1 4.8.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  2 3 Implementing the proposed action would result in no significant noise impacts.  The primary source of 4 noise would be the equipment associated with the construction activities.  Noise associated with the 5 construction projects is difficult to predict because heavy machinery, the major source of noise, is 6 constantly moving in unpredictable patterns.  However, operations normally occur during daytime hours 7 and on week days when occasional loud noises are more apt to be already occurring in the area and be 8 more tolerable.  Local receivers would not be exposed to operational noise for long durations; therefore, 9 any extended disruption of normal activities would not be expected.  As mentioned previously in Section 10 2.3.2.1, weekend and nighttime work would be limited to the City of San Antonio Ordinance (Chapter 21 11 Section 21-52) limit of 80 dBA at property boundaries. 12 13 The approximate sound pressure levels associated with each noise source (i.e., each piece of heavy 14 equipment) have been tabulated and are listed in Table 4-8.  Construction sources were classified as 15 stationary point source due to the nature of the confined site and to simplify assessment.  The 16 calculations and noted assumptions for construction sites were then made as directed in the manual 17 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment dated May 2006. When source-specific data are 18 unavailable, worst-case scenario data were utilized. The detailed noise calculations performed for this 19 assessment are included as Appendix D.  As Identified in Table 4-9, a composite sound level (based on 20 the amount of noise generated from combined sources) of approximately 91.0 dB on the A-weighted 21 scales (dBA) could be expected at 50 feet from the source.  Based on the concept of spherical spreading, 22 SELs would diminish to the City ordinance required 80 dBA level near the property line.  It should be 23 noted, however, that several differing scenarios (e.g., equipment used, barriers, etc.) could alter these 24 results. 25 26 There are no residential communities, schools, churches, or hospitals identified within 250 feet of this site. 27 Other potentially sensitive areas identified were a bed and breakfast to the north, the adjacent River Walk 28 to the east, and a public park to the southwest.  As mentioned in Section 2.3.2.1, project plans and 29 specifications would require the construction contractor to make every reasonable effort to minimize 30 construction noise through abatement measures such as work-hour controls, equipment selection and 31 duration of use, monitoring of noise, noise control treatments, proper maintenance of muffler systems, 32 and other methods as warranted.  As a result of reasonable controls, no significant impacts would be 33 anticipated, and upon completion of the construction activities and removal of the equipment, sound 34 levels should return to those comparable to the levels that existed prior to construction. 35 36 Table 4-8. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels.
Equipment  Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source1  Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source2
Air Compressor   81  81
Backhoe  80  85
Compactor   82  --
Concrete Mixer   85  85
Concrete Pump   82  82
Concrete Vibrator   76  76
Crane, Derrick   88  88
Crane, Mobile   83  83
Dozer   85  87
Generator   81  78
Grader   85  85
Impact Wrench   85  --
Table 4-8 (contd.). Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels.
Equipment  Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source1  Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source2
Jack Hammer  88  --
Loader   85  84
Paver  89  89
Paving breaker  -- 88
Pile-driver (Impact)  101  101
Pile-driver (Sonic)  96  --
Pneumatic Tool   85  85
Pump  76  76
Rock Drill  98  98
Roller   74  80
Saw  76  78
Scarifier   83  --
Scraper   89  88
Shovel  82  82
Truck   88  88
2 1 - Taken from the federal Transit Administration manual transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
 3 FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May, 2006.
4 2 - Taken from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report Noise in America: Extent of the Noise
 5 Problem, 550/9-81-101, September, 1981.
6
7 Table 4-9. Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the River Site.
Construction Phase  1Leq at 50 Feet  2SEL at Property Line  3SEL at Identified Receptor  4Required Noise Criteria
Site Preparation Clearing & Excavation  89  82  77  80
Foundation Utilities and Paving  88  80  76  80
Construction Erection and Finishing  89  81  77  80
USEPA combined Phase Level  91  83  79  80
8 Note: Table Calculations based on section 12.1.1 of Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment using the general 9 assessment assumptions found in that section.
10 All Levels are dBA = A-weighted decibel level
11 See Appendix D for detailed noise calculations.
12 1 -From combined calculation of the two noisiest pieces of equipment expected to be used.
13 2 -Calculated from the first column result using the center of the project as the noise source.
14 3 -Nearest receptors are a Bed and Breakfast and the River Walk areas.
15 4 - Code of Ordinances, City of San Antonio, Texas, adopted September 20, 2007, Chapter 21, sections 21-51 through 21-90,
16 applies to evenings and weekends only.
17
18
19
20
1 4.8.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  2 3 Similar to the previous alternative, implementing this alternative would result in no significant noise 4 impacts.  As Identified in Table 4-10, a composite sound level (based on the amount of noise generated 5 from combined sources) of approximately 91.0 dB on the A-weighted scales (dBA) could be expected at 6 50 feet from the source.  Based on the concept of spherical spreading, SELs would diminish to the City 7 ordinance required 80 dBA level near the property line.  It should be noted, however, that several differing 8 scenarios (e.g., equipment used, barriers, etc.) could alter these results. 9 10 There are no residential communities, schools, churches, or hospitals identified within 250 feet of this site. 11 Other potentially sensitive areas identified was the UTSA Institute of Texan Cultures facility to the east, 12 the Texas A&M University Engineering Extension service center approximately 600 feet northwest, and a 13 public park with historic buildings adjacent and to the west of the site.  As mentioned in Section 2.3.2.1, 14 project plans and specifications would require the construction contractor to make every reasonable effort 15 to minimize construction noise through abatement measures such as work-hour controls, equipment 16 selection and duration of use, monitoring of noise, noise control treatments, proper maintenance of 17 muffler systems, and other methods as warranted.  As a result of reasonable controls, no significant 18 impacts would be anticipated, and upon completion of the construction activities and removal of the 19 equipment, sound levels should return to those comparable to the levels that existed prior to construction. 20 21 Table 4-10. Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Hemisfair Site.
Construction Phase  1Leq at 50 Feet  2SEL at Property Line  3SEL at Identified Receptor  4Required Noise Criteria
Site Preparation Clearing & Excavation  85  77  74  80
Foundation Utilities and Paving  85  75  72  80
Construction Erection and Finishing  81  76  73  80
USEPA combined Phase Level  91  78  75  80
22 Note: Table Calculations based on section 12.1.1 of Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment using the general
 23 assessment assumptions found in that section.
24 All Levels are dBA = A-weighted decibel level
25 See Appendix D for detailed noise calculations.
26 1 -From combined calculation of the two noisiest pieces of equipment expected to be used.
27 2 -Calculated from the first column result using the center of the project as the noise source.
28 3 - Nearest receptors are the University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio and the Federal Courthouse Plaza
 29 office building.
30 4 - Code of Ordinances, City of San Antonio, Texas, adopted September 20, 2007, Chapter 21, sections 21-51 through 21-90,
 31 applies to evenings and weekends only.
 32
33 4.8.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  34 35 Similar to the previous alternatives, implementing this alternative would result in no significant noise 36 impacts.  As Identified in Table 4-11, a composite sound level (based on the amount of noise generated 37 from combined sources) of approximately 91.0 dB on the A-weighted scales (dBA) could be expected at 38 50 feet from the source.  Based on the concept of spherical spreading, SELs would diminish to the City 39 ordinance required 80 dBA level near the property line.  It should be noted, however, that several differing 40 scenarios (e.g., equipment used, barriers, etc.) could alter these results. 41 42 There are no residential communities, schools, churches, or hospitals identified within 250 feet of this site. 43 Other potentially sensitive areas identified were a state park/historical building adjacent to and north of 44 the site, a church approximately 850 feet southwest, a historical church approximately 1,000 feet 1 northeast, and a public park with historic building approximately 800 feet southeast of the site.  As 2 mentioned in Section 2.3.2.1, project plans and specifications would require the construction contractor to 3 make every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through abatement measures such as work4 hour controls, equipment selection and duration of use, monitoring of noise, noise control treatments, 5 proper maintenance of muffler systems, and other methods as warranted.  As a result of reasonable 6 controls, no significant impacts would be anticipated, and upon completion of the construction activities 7 and removal of the equipment, sound levels should return to those comparable to the levels that existed 8 prior to construction. 9
10 Table 4-11. Expected Construction Equipment Noise Levels at the Police Headquarters Site.
Construction Phase  1Leq at 50 Feet  2SEL at Property Line  3SEL at Identified Receptor  4Required Noise Criteria
Site Preparation Clearing & Excavation  75  74  80  75
Foundation Utilities and Paving  74  73  80  74
Construction Erection and Finishing  75  74  80  75
USEPA combined Phase Level  77  76  80  77
11 Note: Table Calculations based on section 12.1.1 of Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment using the general
 12 assessment assumptions found in that section.
13 All Levels are dBA = A-weighted decibel level
14 See Appendix D for detailed noise calculations.
15 1 -From combined calculation of the two noisiest pieces of equipment expected to be used.
16 2 -Calculated from the first column result using the center of the project as the noise source.
17 3 -Nearest receptors are parks and a church.
18 4 - Code of Ordinances, City of San Antonio, Texas, adopted September 20, 2007, Chapter 21, sections 21-51 through 21-90,
 19 applies to evenings and weekends only.
 20
21 4.9 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 22 23 Appendix E provides details of the Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Assessment that was 24 conducted in support of this EA (GSA 2008).  A summary of the report findings and recommendations are 25 provided in the following sections.26
27 4.9.1 No Action Alternative 28 29 Implementing the no action alternative would result in no significant impacts to cultural or historic 30 resources.  Under the no action alternative, court activities would remain at the existing John H. Wood, Jr. 31 Federal Courthouse.  District court support functions and the U.S. Marshals Service would remain at the 32 adjacent Federal Building.  No additional site acquisition would be necessary and no construction 33 activities would occur.  As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 34
35 4.9.2 Construction of a New Facility at the River Site  36 37 Implementing this alternative would result in significant impacts to cultural and/or historic properties.  As 38 mentioned previously in Section 3.9, the River Site contains two historic-age architectural properties that 39 may be eligible for nomination to the NRHP.  The first is located at 111 Aubrey Street and the second is 40 located at 408 Dwyer. Development of this site would have an adverse effect on these two properties. 41 Additionally, a number of historic-age buildings are located in the half-block APE (see Section 3.9).  Near 42 surface and deeply buried intact archeological deposits may also exist at this site and their significance 43 would require determination prior to construction and/or ground-disturbing activities.  As mentioned 1 previously in Section 2.3.2.1, should this site be chosen, the GSA would consult with the SHPO and 2 interested parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the effects of 3 development of this site. 4
5 4.9.3 Construction of a New Facility at Hemisfair Site 2  6 7 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to cultural and/or historic properties. 8 As mentioned previously in Section 3.9, the Hemisfair Site and the half-block APE contain one property, 9 the Institute of Texan Cultures, that was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP.  It is unlikely that10 development of this site would have an adverse effect on this nearby structure. Considering the impacts 11 to the surface and near surface due to previous demolition of structures, leveling of lots, installation of 12 underground utilities, widening of roads, and cutting and filling for construction, the potential for intact, 13 significant archeological deposits at the Hemisfair Site is considered extremely low. However, as 14 mentioned previously in Section 2.3.2.1, should this site be chosen, the GSA would consult with the 15 SHPO and interested parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the effects 16 of development of this site. 17
18 4.9.4 Construction of a New Facility at the Police Headquarters Site  19 20 Implementing this alternative would result in no significant impacts to cultural and/or historic properties. 21 As mentioned previously in Section 3.9, the Police Headquarters Site does not contain any properties that 22 appear to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP.  However, the half-block APE contains several sites 23 that may be age-eligible only and the site abuts the Main and Military Plazas Historic District and the 24 Casa Navarro State Historic Site.  It is unlikely that development of this site would have an adverse effect 25 on these nearby structures and/or sites.  Considering surface and near-surface impacts due to previous 26 demolition of structures, leveling of lots, installation of utilities, widening of roads, channelization of San 27 Pedro Creek, and cutting and filling for construction, the potential for intact, significant archeological 28 deposits at the Police Headquarters Site is considered extremely low.  However, as mentioned previously 29 in Section 2.3.2.1, should this site be chosen, the GSA would consult with the SHPO and interested 30 parties as required under Section 106 of the NHPA to take into account the effects of development of this 31 site.
1 2 3 4 5
General Services Administration
Region 7
Karla Carmichael
Steve Kline
Steve Skidmore
Vance & Man Consulting, LLC
Ron Moore
Lisa Schaub
Geo-Marine, Inc.
Missi Green
Steve Hunt
Martha Doty Freeman
Enercon Services, Inc.
Bruce Meek, P.E.
Randy Beeson
 Clyde Jones
Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
Douglas Cargo, PhD 6 John Thompson, P.E. 7
SECTION 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Project Development, Section 1.0, Section 2.0, and Document Review
Project Management, Section 1.0, Section 2.0, Section 3.0, Section 4.0, Section 5.0, Section 6.0, Section 7.0, Section 8.0, and Document Review
Section 3.0, Section 4.0, and Document Review
Section 3.0 and Section 4.0
Section 3.0 and Section 4.0
1
2 SECTION 6.0
3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 4 5 As part of the NEPA process, the GSA held a public meeting on the evening of November 14, 2007 to 6 inform the citizens of San Antonio of the status of the project and where the GSA was in the process. 7 The public meeting was held at the San Antonio Convention Center.  As part of the meeting, the GSA 8 informed the citizens of the three sites under consideration for construction of a new Federal Courthouse 9 and gave the citizens the opportunity to comment and provide input with regards to each of the sites 10 under consideration.  The GSA also updated the public with regards to the schedule for the availability of 11 the Draft EA for review.  A synopsis of the public meeting and comments received specific to the project 12 alternatives are included in Appendix F.  All comments received were specific to the site selection 13 process, and as such, will be addressed by the GSA in the Final EA. 14 15 This Draft EA has also been made available for public review and comment.  A copy of the Notice of 16 Availability (NOA) is included on the following page.  A copy of the Affidavit of Publication will be included 17 in Appendix F as part of the Final EA.  The EA has been made available for public review at the following 18 location: 19 20 City of San Antonio21 Central Library 22 600 Soledad Street 23 San Antonio, Texas 78205 24 210-207-2500 25 26 The Draft EA is also available for review and/or download at the following GSA website: 27 28 www.gsa.gov/sanantonioch 29 30 The public comment period is open from January 30, 2008 until February 29, 2008.  All comments should 31 be submitted (and postmarked) by February 29, 2008.  Comments should be sent to: 32 33 Karla Carmichael 34 Environmental Protection Specialist 35 General Services Administration, Region 7 36 819 Taylor Street 37 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 38 sa.courthouse.comments@gsa.gov
1
2
3 Notice of Availability for the
4 Draft Environmental Assessment
5 for the Proposed Construction of a New Federal Courthouse
6 in Downtown San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas
7
8 Interested parties are hereby notified that the General Services Administration (GSA) has prepared a
9 Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed construction and operation of a new Federal 10 Courthouse in Downtown San Antonio, Texas. 11 12 Statutory Authority.  This notice is being issued to interested parties in accordance with the National 13 Environmental Policy Act, Public Law (PL) 91-190, 42 United States Code 4321-4347, as amended by PL 14 94-52 and 94-83 of 1975, and PL 97-258 of 1982.  15 16 Purpose.  Based on the Long-Range Facility Plan for the U.S., Federal Courts, Western District of Texas, 17 the purpose of the proposed action is to meet the courts 10-year projected needs for additional 18 judgeships in San Antonio, and by the need to consolidate space to improve efficiency.  Under this action, 19 the GSA would acquire one of three sites under consideration in the Downtown San Antonio area for the 20 construction and long-term operation of the new Federal Courthouse.  The alternative sites considered by 21 the GSA include the River Site, the HemisFair Site, and the Police Headquarters Site. 22 23 Comments.  The public comment period is open for 30 days following the publication of this notice in a 24 general circulation newspaper.  Comments on the Draft EA must be received (or postmarked) within the 25 30-day period. Comments should be directed to Ms. Karla Carmichael of GSA Region 7, Public Buildings 26 Service, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, sa.courthouse.comments@gsa.gov. Copies of the 27 Draft EA are available for review by the public at the City of San Antonio Central Library, 600 Soledad 28 Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205, 210-207-2500.  The Draft EA can also be reviewed and downloaded 29 at www.gsa.gov/sanantonioch. 30
1
2 SECTION 7.0
3 REFERENCES 4 5 Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG).  2007.  AACOG Air Quality Program Online Data Source. 6 http://www.cleanairdrive.com/images/AQFactSheet.jpg. Accessed: December 2007.  7 8 City of San Antonio.  1999.  Downtown Neighborhood Plan adopted Mary 13, 1999.  City of San Antonio,9 Planning and Community Development Online Data Source.  http://www.sanantonio.gov/ 10 planning/ neighborhoods/Downtown/downtown_plan.pdf. Accessed: November 2007. 11 12 City of San Antonio.  2004.  Hemisfair Park Area Master Plan (Downtown Neighborhood Plan Update) 13 adopted March 25, 2004.  City of San Antonio, Planning and Community Development Online 14 Data Source.  http://www.sanantonio.gov/ planning/hemisfair_plan.pdf. Accessed: November 15 2007. 16 17 City of San Antonio.  2004a.  City of San Antonio Planning and Community Development, Online Map 18 Catalog.  Major Thoroughfare Plan  Central Business District.  February 2004.  Online Data 19 Source.  http://www.sanantonio.gov/planning/pdf/GIS/map_download/0409GG05.pdf. Accessed: 20 October 2007. 21 22 City of San Antonio. 2007.  San Antonio Fire Department, Online Map of Fire Station Locations. 23 http://www.sanantonio.gov/safd/pdf/SAFD_Fire_Station_Locations.pdf. Accessed: November 24 2007. 25 26 City of San Antonio. 2007a.  San Antonio, Environmental Services, Solid Waste Division Online Services 27 Data. http://www.sanantonio.gov/enviro/solidwaste/. Accessed: November 2007.   28 29 City of San Antonio. 2007b. City of San Antonio Online Mapping and Data. 30 http://maps.sanantonio.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=COSA. Accessed: November 2007 31 32 City of San Antonio. 2007c.  City of San Antonio, Public Works Department, Transportation Group, Traffic 33 Engineering Section, Online Traffic Count Data as of October 4, 2007. 34 http://www.sanantonio.gov/publicworks/streets/pdf/Traffic%20Count%20Data%20Base.pdf. 35 Accessed: November 2007. 36 37 City of San Antonio. 2007d.  City of San Antonio, Downtown Operations Department, Parking Division 38 Online Data Source. http://www.sanantonio.gov/dtops/parkdtops.asp. Accessed: October 2007. 39 40 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  1997. Environmental Justice.  Guidance under the National 41 Environmental Policy Act.  10 December. 42 43 CPS Energy.  2007.  Online Data Sources.  http://www.cpsenergy.com/content_listInternet.asp? 44 elmt_id=12. Accessed November 2007. 45 46 Eckhardt.  2007.  The Edwards Aquifer Website Online Data Sources.  http://www.edwardsaquifer. 47 net/index.html. Accessed: November 2007. 48 49 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2007. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood 50 Insurance Rate Mapping as provided by EDR.  November 2007. 51 52 Federal Transit Administration (FTA).  2006.  A Manual: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 53 FTA-VA-90-1003-06.  Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts.  May.54 55
1 Fidell, S., D.S. Barger, and T.J. Schultz.  1991.  Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the 2 Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise.  Journal of the Acoustical 3 Society of America 89:221-233.  January. 4 5 General Services Administration (GSA).  2007.  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the River 6 Site. Downtown San Antonio, Texas.  V&M Consulting, LLC.  December 2007. 7 8 General Services Administration (GSA).  2007a.  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the 9 Hemisfair Site.  Downtown San Antonio, Texas.  V&M Consulting, LLC.  December 2007. 10 11 General Services Administration (GSA).  2007b.  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Police 12 Headquarters Site.  Downtown San Antonio, Texas.  V&M Consulting, LLC. December 2007. 13 14 General Services Administration (GSA).  2008. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance and Assessments of 15 Three Potential Locations for the New Federal Courthouse, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. 16 Geo-Marine, Inc.  January 2008.   17 18 Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.  2004.  The Economic Impact of San Antonios Hospitality 19 Industry. Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce in cooperation with the San Antonio Hotel 20 and Lodging Association, the San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the San Antonio 21 Area Tourism Council.  2004. 22 23 League for the Hard of Hearing. 2002.  Noise Levels in our Environment Fact Sheet. 24 http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm. 24 October.  Accessed 06 March 2003. 25 26 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.  1978.  Preserving Texas Natural Heritage. Project Report 27 31. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/tx-eco95.htm. Accessed 24 September 2003. 28 29 McMahan, C.A., R. Frye, and K.L. Brown.  1984. The Vegetation Types of Texas Including Cropland: An 30 Illustrated Synopsis to Accompany the Map.  Wildlife Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife 31 Department, Austin. 32 33 Ogershok, Dave and Richard Pray.  2006. 2007 National Construction Estimator.  55th edition. 34 Craftsman Book Company.  Carlsbad, California. 35 36 San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD).  2007.  SAISD Online School Location Map. 37 http://www.saisd.net/school/Mini_District_Map.pdf. Accessed: November 2007. 38 39 San Antonio Water System (SAWS). 2007. Online Services Data.  http://www.saws.org/our_water/. 40 Accessed: November 2007. 41 42 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).  2007.  Annotated County Lists of Rare Species.  Wildlife 43 Diversity Branch. October 2007. 44 45 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB).  2001.  Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin.  Census 2000 Brief. 46 C2KBR/01-1. March. 47 48 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB).  2007.  Poverty Thresholds in 2000, by Size of Family and Number of 49 Related Children Under 18 Years.  http://www.census.gov /hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh00.html. 50 Revised 22 August.  Accessed on September 2007. 51 52 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB).  2007a.  State and County QuickFacts Online Database.  Demographic 53 data for Bexar County, City of San Antonio, USCB Tact 1101, and Block Group 3 and 7. 54 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. Accessed October 2007. 55
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1974. Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. 2 Washington, D.C.  24 p.3 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1974a. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 5 Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9-74-004. 6 March. 7 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1981. Noise in America:  The Extent of the Noise 9 Problem. September. 10 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Factors.  Volume II: 12 Mobile Sources (AP-42).  4th edition. Ann Arbor.  September. 13 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1988. Gap Filling PM10 Emission Factors for Selected 15 Open Area Dust Sources. EPA-450/4-88-003.  Research Triangle Park.  February.16 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 18 Volume 1:  Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42). 5th Edition. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 19 January. 20 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 22 (NAAQS).  http://www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html.  Accessed October 2007. 23 24 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  2007. County Listings of Listed and Candidate Species within 25 Austin Office Area of Responsibility.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 26 Division of Ecological Services.  October 2007. 27 28 VIA Metropolitan Transit. 2007. VIA Online Interactive System Map. http://www.viainfo. 29 net/BusService/InteractiveMap.aspx. Accessed: November 2007. 30
1
2 SECTION 8.0
3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
4
5
6 g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
7 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
 8 ACM asbestos-containing materials
9 ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
10 AHPA Archeological and Historic Preservation Act
11 AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
12 AMSD approximate minimum search distance
13 APE Area of Potential Effect
14 AQCR Air Quality Control Region
15 ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act
16 BMPs best management practices
17 C Commercial
18 CAA Clean Air Act
19 CBD Central Business District
20 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
21 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
22 CFR Code of Federal Regulations
23 CICA Competition in Contracting Act
24 CO carbon monoxide
25 CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
26 D Downtown
27 dB decibel
28 dBA "A" weighted decibels
29 DL De-listed
30 DNL day-night average sound level
31 E Endangered
32 EA environmental assessment
33 EDR Environmental Data Resources
34 EO Executive Order
35 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
36 ESA Environmental Site Assessment
37 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
38 FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
39 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
40 FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
41 FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
42 FY Fiscal Year
43 GSA General Services Administration
44 H Historic District
45 HE Historic Exceptional
46 HOT Hotel Occupancy Tax
47 HS Historic Significant
48 lb pound
49 Lmax A-weighted sound level or maximum sound level
50 LTANKS Leaking Underground Storage Tank
51 MDP Master Development Plan
52 mg/L milligrams per liter
53 NAA   nonattainment areas
54 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
55 NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
1 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
2 NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
3 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
4 NOI notice of intent
5 NOX nitrous oxides
 6 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
7 NRHP National Register of Historic Places
 8 O Office
 9 O3 ozone
10 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
11 Pb lead
12 PBS Public Buildings Service
13 PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
14 PEL permissible exposure limit
15 PL Public Law
16 PM10 particulate matter measuring less than 10 microns in diameter
17 ppm parts per million
18 PT Federally proposed endangered/threatened
19 RAP Remedial Action Plan
20 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
21 RCRA-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Generator
22 REC recognized environmental condition
23 RIO River Overlay Districts
24 RM Mixed Residential
25 ROI region of influence
26 SAISD San Antonio Independent School District
27 SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
28 SAWS San Antonio Water System
29 SEL sound exposure level
30 SIP State Implementation Plan
31 SO2 sulfur dioxide
32 SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
33 T Threatened
34 TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
35 THC Texas Historical Commission
36 TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
37 TIER 2 Tier 2 Chemical Inventory Reports
38 TPDES Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
39 TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
40 TPY   tons per year
41 TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
42 TSP total suspended particulates
43 TX VCP Texas Voluntary Cleanup Program
44 UDC Unified Development Code
45 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
46 USC United States Code
47 USCB U.S. Census Bureau
48 USCDG U.S. Courts Design Guide
49 USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
50 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
51 UST Underground Storage Tank
52 VOC   volatile organic compound