[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


Texas Coastal

Management
Program
Final Environmental
Impact Statement/



Prepared by:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
State of Texas        A   'pmsOTP
Coastal Coordination Council

*   August 1996










        United States Department of Commerce

     Combined Coastal Management Program and
       Final Environmental Impact Statement for
                   the State of Texas



                      August 1996





                       Prepared by:

      Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
               U.S. Department of Commerce
             1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
              Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

                           and

                    The State of Texas
                Stephen F. Austin Building
                 1700 N. Congress Avenue
                Austin, Texas 78701-1495




The preparation of this publication was financed by the Office of
      Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA.


















































 The Texas General Land Office does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age or disability in employment or the provision of services. To request
an accessible format, call 512-463-2613 or contact us through RELAY Texas at 1-800-735-
   2989 or write to 1700 N. Congress Ave., Austin, Texas 78701-1495. Reproduced on
                                      recycled paper.







                                       ABSTRACT

DESIGNATION:         Final Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE:               Proposed Federal Approval of the Texas Coastal Management Program

ABSTRACT:            The State of Texas has submitted its Coastal Management Program to the
                     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for approval pursuant
                     to Section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as
                     amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Approval would allow
                     program administrative grants to be awarded to the State and would
                     require that Federal actions be consistent with the program. This
                     document includes a copy of the program, which is a comprehensive
                     management program for coastal land and water use activities. It consists
                     of numerous policies on diverse management issues which are
                     administered under Texas laws and is the culmination of several years of
                     program development. The Texas Coastal Management Program either
                     promotes the beneficial use of coastal resources, prevents their
                     impairment, or manages major activities that substantially affect numerous
                     resources. The program will enhance decision-making processes used for
                     determining the appropriateness of actions in the coastal area.

                     Approval and implementation of the program will enhance governance of
                     Texas's coastal land and water uses according to the coastal policies and
                     standards contained in Texas's statutes, authorities and rules. Federal
                     alternatives to program approval include delaying or denying approval, if
                     certain requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act have not been
                     met. The State could modify parts of the program or withdraw its
                     application for Federal approval if either of the above Federal alternatives
                     results from circulation of this document.

APPLICANT:           State of Texas, Texas General Land Office

LEAD AGENCY:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

FEDERAL              Bill O'Beirne
CONTACT:             Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                     NOAA - U.S. Department of Commerce
                     1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM3
                     Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
                     (301) 713-3109, ext. 160
                     E-mail: <bobeirne~coasts.nos.noaa.gov>







STATE
CONTACT:             Janet Fatheree
                    Secretary 
                    Texas Coastal Coordination Council
                    Stephen F. Austin Building
                    1700 N. Congress Avenue
                   Austin, Texas 78701-1495
                    (512) 463-5385
                   E-mail: <jfathereeglo.state.tx.us>

COMMENTS:            Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement are due to
                   NOAA 30 days after date published.

COASTAL
COORDINATION
COUNCIL:             Garry Mauro, Texas Land Commissioner, Chairman
                   John Barrett, Agriculture Representative
                   Lee Bass, Parks and Wildlife Commission
                   Bob Dunkin, Coastal Citizen Representative
                   Fred Heldenfels, Coastal Business Representative
                   David Laney, Texas Transportation Commission
                   William Madden, Texas Water Development Board
                   Barry McBee, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
                   C.F. "Dick" Schendel, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
                   Ed Stuart, Coastal Local Government Representative
                   Barry Williamson, Railroad Commission of Texas







NOTE TO READERS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that an environmental impact
statement be prepared as part of the review and approval process by Federal government agencies
of major actions which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The Federal
action contemplated is approval of the Texas Coastal Management Program under Section 306 of
the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA). It is the general
policy of the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) to issue
combined environmental impact statements and program documents.

Part I of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared jointly by the the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (NOAA) and the State of Texas and provides summary information concerning the
Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP), including how the program addresses the
requirements of the CZMA. Part II of the FEIS is a description of the TCMP and was prepared
by the State. It has been reviewed by NOAA and is relied upon as a description of the proposed
action for purposes of NEPA. Part III fulfills the remaining NEPA requirements for an FEIS and
was prepared by NOAA with assistance from the State of Texas. Part VII contains public
comments on the DEIS and NOAA's response to those comments.

An immediate effect of federal approval of the Texas program is the qualification of the State to
receive Federal matching funds for use in administering the program. The CZMA also requires
Federal agencies to undertake activities consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
federally approved state coastal management programs. In addition, upon program approval,
entities within the State of Texas will be eligible to apply for deepwater port licenses from the
U.S. Coast Guard, pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C.A. ï¿½ 1503).

For purposes of reviewing this proposed action, the key questions are:

       *      whether the Texas program is consistent with the objectives and policies of the
              national legislation;

       *      whether the award of Federal funds under Section 306 of the Federal Act will help
              Texas to meet those objectives;

       ï¿½ whether Texas management policies, authorities, and organizational structure are
              adequate to implement the program; and

       *      whether there will be a net environmental gain as a result of program approval and
              implementation.

NOAA has made a preliminary determination that the answers to these questions are affirmative.
NOAA wants the widest possible circulation of this document to all interested agencies and
parties in order to receive the fullest expression of opinion on these questions. NOAA thanks
those participating in the review of the TCMP and this FEIS.



                                             iii
























































iv







                    TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                          AND
                  FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                                TABLE OF CONTENTS



Part I. OVERVIEW

A. Summary of the Texas Coastal Management Program ................................... I-1
       1. Scope of the Program ....................................................... 1-2
      2. Program Goals and Policies .................................................. 1-3
       3. Program Organization and Implementation ...................................... 1-4
      4. Other Special Planning Requirements of the CZMA ............................... 1-9

B. Changes the Program Will Make ................................................... 1-10
       1. Governmental Accountability, Responsiveness and Coordination ................... 1-10
      2. Dredging in Coastal Waters ................................................. 1-10
      3. Development on the Gulf of Mexico Shoreline ...................l............... -11
      4. Development of Coastal Wetlands and Other Critical Areas ........................ 1-12
      5. Program Objectives and Action Items ......................................... 1-12
      6. Effects of Federal Approval ................................................. 1-13

C. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act ........................................... 1-14

D. Cross Reference to Program Requirements ........................................... 1-17

Part H1. DESCRIPTION OF THE TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

   Chapter One - Introduction
      A. The Texas Coast ..........................................................1-1
      B. The Texas Coastal Management Program: A Cooperative Solution .................. 1-1
      C. Principal Issues of State Concern .............................................1-2
      D. Coastal Natural Resource Areas ..............................................1-4
      E. Uses to Be Managed ........................................................1-7
      F. Goals of the Texas Coastal Management Program ............................... 1-8
      G. A Strategy for the Texas Coast ..............................................1-8
      H. What the TCMP will Accomplish ............................................1-9

  Chapter Two - Texas Coastal Management Procram Boundarv
      A. Introduction ..............................................................2-1
      B. General Description of the Coastal Zone Boundary ...............................2-1
      C. Legal Description of the Coastal Zone Boundary ..................................2-2
        (1) The Inland Boundary .....................................................2-2
        (2) The Seaward Boundary ...................................................2-5
        (3) The Interstate Boundary with the State of Louisiana ............................2-5
        (4) The Boundary with the Republic of Mexico ...................................2-5
        (5) Excluded Federal Lands ..................................................2-5
      D. Delineation of the Coastal Management Boundary ................................2-7

                                           V







  Chapter Three - Organizational Structure For Implementation
       A. Implementation ...........................................................3-1
          1. Coastal Coordination Council .............................................3-1
          2. Implementation Mechanisms ..............................................3-2
            a. Executive Committee of the Council ......................................3-2
            b. Permitting Assistance Group ............................................3-3
            c. Interagency Coordination Groups ........................................3-3
            d. Maintenance Dredging Memorandum of Agreement .........................3-4
            e. Trans-Texas Program Policy Management Committee .......................3-4
            f. Advisory Committee ..................................................3-4
            g. Corps of Engineers Preapplication Process .................................3-5
          3. Texas General Land Office-Lead State Coastal Agency ........................3-5
          4. Networked State Agencies and Subdivisions Responsible for Implementation . .....3-6
       B. Compliance Monitoring ...................................................3-7
           1. Coastal Coordination Council .............................................3-7
          2. Texas General Land Office ...............................................3-8
           a. Monitoring Mechanisms and Procedures ...................................3-8
           b. Administrative Monitoring Capacity .......................................3-9
          3. Networked State Agencies and Subdivisions Responsible for Monitoring .    ..........3-9
       C. Enforcement .............................................................3-9
          1. Coastal Coordination Council .............................................3-9
          2. Attorney General ......................................................3-10
          3. Texas General Land Office ..............................................3-10
          4. Networked State Agencies and Subdivisions Responsible for Enforcement .   .......3-10
       D. Local Government Involvement .............................................3-11

Chapter Four - Procram Goals and Policies
      A. Introduction .............................................................. 4-1
      B. TCMP Goals .............................................................4-2
      C. Coastal Natural Resource Areas (CNRAs) ......................................4-3
      D. Enforceable Policies of the TCMP ............................................4-6
          1. Construction of Electric Generating and Transmission Facilities .................4-6
          2. Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Oil and Gas Exploration
              and Production Facilities ................................................4-9
          3. Discharges of Wastewater and Disposal of Waste from Oil and Gas
              Exploration and Production Activities ....................................4-13
          4. Construction and Operation of Solid Waste Treatment, Storage, and
             Disposal Facilities ....................................................4-16
          5. Prevention, Response, and Remediation of Oil Spills .........................4-19
          6. Discharge of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater to Coastal Waters ............4-20
          7. Nonpoint-Sources of Water Pollution .................................... 4-25
          8. Development in Critical Areas ..........................................4-29
          9. Construction of Waterfront Facilities and Other Structures on
              Submerged Lands ....................................................4-46
         10. Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal and Placement ......................4-57
         11. Construction in the Beach/Dune System ...................................4-77
         12. Development in Coastal Hazard Areas ....................................4-82
         13. Development within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units
             and Otherwise Protected Areas on Coastal Barriers ..........................4-83




                                            vi







Chapter Four - Program Goals and Policies (Cont.)

          14. Development in State Parks, Wildlife Management Areas, or
              Preserves ...........................................................4-87
          15. Alteration of Coastal Historic Areas ......................................4-89
          16. Transportation .......................................................4-92
          17. Emission of Air Pollutants ..............................................4-95
          18. Appropriations of Water ...............................................4-96
          19. Levee and Flood Control Projects .......................................4-102
         20. Major Actions ......................................................4-105
         21. Administrative Policies ...............................................4-106
       E. Advisory Policies ........................................................4-107


Chapter Five - Ensurina Comnliance With Propram Policies
       A. Introduction ..............................................................5-1
       B. Consistency of Agency Rules: The Council's Primary Tool ........................5-1
           1. Incentives for Rule Certification: Thresholds ................................5-1
           2. Rule Certification Procedures ............................................5-2
           3. Ensuring Compliance: Decertification .....................................5-3
       C. Consistency of Permits and Other Individual Actions .............................5-4
           1. Means of Ensuring Consistency of Individual Actions .........................5-4
           2. Action by Networked Agency or Subdivision ...............................5-5
           3. Action by a Non-Networked Agency or Subdivision ..........................5-6
           4. Council Review of Individual Actions .....................................5-6
           5. Third Party Action ....................................................5-9
      D. City and County Management of the Beach/Dune System ........................5-11
      E. Federal Consistency Review ...............................................5-11
           1. Introduction .........................................................5-11
           2. Federal Decisions Covered by TCMP .....................................5-12
           3. General Process for Federal Consistency Review ............................5-15
           4. Federal Activities and Development Projects ...............................5-16
              a. Federal Activities: Negative Determinations ..............................5-17
              b. Federal Activities: General Consistency Determinations ....................5-17
              c. Consistency Determinations for Proposed Development Projects .............5-18
              d. Federal Activities: Determinations for Activities Initiated Prior
                to Federal Approval of the TCMP ......................................5-18
              e. Federal Activities: Council Referral and Review Procedures ................5-18
              f. Special Consistency Review Process for Development Projects
               for which an Interagency Coordination Group is Formed ....................5-19
           5. Federal Agency Actions ................................................5-21
             a. Federal Agency Actions: Council Referral and Review Procedures ............5-23
             b. Federal Agency Actions: General Concurrence ...........................5-24
           6. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Plans .....................................5-24
             a. OCS Plans: Council Referral and Review Process .........................5-25
             b. Amended or New OCS Plans ..........................................5-26
             c. Compliance with OCS Plans ..........................................5-27
           7. State and Local Government Applications for Federal Assistance ...............5-28
             a. Federal Assistance: Council Referral and Review Procedures ................5-28
           8. Mediation of Disputes by the Secretary of Commerce .........................5-29



                                            vii







        9. Secretarial Review Related to the Objectives or Purposes of the Act
          and National Security Interests......................5-29
       10. Review by the Assistant Administrator on Behalf of Interested Parties.......5-30
Chapter Six - Special Plannine Elements..........................6-1
     A. Shorefront Planning
       1. Access to Gulf Beaches ..........................6-1
       2. Access to Bayshores and Coastal Waters....................6-2
       3. Enforceable Policies and Legal Authorities...................6-3
       4. Funding Programs.............................6-3
     B. Shoreline Erosion Response ..........................6-4
       1. Introduction ...............................6-4
       2. Identifying and Assessing Shoreline Erosion ..................6-5
       3. Management of Eroding Areas........................6-5
       4. Enforceable Policies and Legal Authorities...................6-6
       S. Funding.................................6-7
     C. Energy Facility Siting ............................6-8
       1. Introduction ...............................6-8
       2. Energy Facilities Likely to Locate on the Texas Coast...............6-9
       3. Procedures for Assessing the Suitability of Sites ................6-10
       4. Enforceable State Policies, Authorities, and Techniques for Managing
        Energy Facilities and their Impacts......................6-10
       5. Public and Private Party Participation in the Energy Facility Planning
        and Siting Process ............................6-12
     D. Coastal Wetlands Management ........................6-14
       1. Introduction...............................6-14
       2. Status and Trends.............................6-14
       3. Probable Causes of Loss and Degradation...................6-14
       4. State-Owned Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan and Other Wetland
        Management Efforts ...........................6-17
          a. Inventories .............................6-17
          b. Restoration .............................6-18
          c. Relative Sea-Level Rise and the Sediment Budget .............6-19
          d. Freshwater Inflow ..........................6-20
          e. Nonpoint-Source Pollution.......................6-21
          f. Acquisition.............................6-22
          g. Education .............................6-23
          h. Local Government Participation.....................6-23
          i. Coordination of Enforceable State Policies and Authorities ..........6-24
          j. The TCMP: Improving Coordination Through Uniform
            Policies and Consistency Review ....................6-25
          k. Long-Range Navigational Dredging and Dredged Material
            Disposal Plan ............................6-26
     E. Areas for Preservation and Restoration.....................6-27
       1. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.....................6-27
          a. State Parks .............................6-27
          b. State Recreation Areas.........................6-27
          c. State Natural Areas .........................6-27
          d. State Fishing Piers ..........................6-28
          e. State Natural Landmarks ........................6-28
          f. Wildlife Management Areas.                                                      .....................6-28

                                 Viii







Chapter Six - Special Planniniz Elements (Cont.)

            g. Scientific Areas.                                                                 ..........................6-28
          2.Txas Historical Commission.........................6-28
            a. State Historical Areas .........................6-28
            b. State Archeological Landmarks .....................6-29
        3. General Land Office and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department .         .       .       ........6-29
            a. Coastal Preserves.                                                                .........................6-29
            b. Coastal Wetlands...........................6-30
        4.General Land Office.............................6-30
            a. Refuges and Scientific Areas ......................6-30
            b. Critical Erosion Areas .........................6-30
      F. Plan Coordination ..............................6-33
        1. Identified Plans..............................                                        6-33
        2. Other Agencies Contacted ..........................6-34

Chapter Seven - Consideration of the National Interest and Activities of Regvional Benefit
      A. Consideration of the National Interest......................7-1
        1. Identification of Facilities of National Interest .................7-2
        2. Management of Facilities of National Interest..................7-2
        3. How the National Interest is Addressed by the TCMP...............7-3
            a. Defense and Aerospace Facilities and Activities ...............7-3
            b. Energy Exploration, Production and Transmission Facilities and Activities ....7-3
            c. Transportation Facilities and Activities...................7-4
            d. Water Resources Development Facilities and Activities............7-4
           e. Water, Air, and Land Pollution Control Facilities and Activities.........7-4
           f. Management of Natural and Technological Hazards..............7-4
           g. Recreational Facilities and Activities ...................7-5
           h. Coastal Natural Resources........................7-5
        4. Summary of National Interest Statements Received from Federal Agencies......7-6
         a. U.S. Department of Agriculture.......................7-6
         b. U.S. Department of Commerce.......................7-6
         c. U.S. Department of Defense.........................7-6
         d. U.S. Department of Energy .........................7-7
         e. U.S. Department of the Interior .......................7-7
         f. Federal Emergency Management Agency ...................7-8
         g. U.S. Geological Survey...........................7-8
         h. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ....................7-8
         i. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .....................7-8
         k. U.S. Department of Transportation ......................7-9
         1. Department of Health and Human Services ...................7-9
         mn. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ....................7-9
     B. Activities of Regional Benefit..........................7-10
        1. Identification of Activities of Regional Benefit.................7-10
        2. Management Authority ..........................7-11

Chapter Eight - Public Particination and Federal A~encv Consultation
     A. Background ................................8-1
     B. Direct Public Participation During Program Development..............8-1
        1. Executive Committee of the Coastal Coordination Council ............8-1
        2. Focus Groups ..............................8-2

                                     ix







         3. Public Meetings, Workshops, and Presentations ...............................8-2
         4. Public Participation in Rulemaking .........................................8-3
       C. Public Participation During Program Implementation ............................8-5
       D. Public Information on the TCMP .............................................8-6
          1. Publications ............................................................8-6
         2. Information Packets ......................................................8-7
         3. Media .................................................................8-7
         4. Exhibits ...............................................................8-8
       E. Federal Agency Consultation ................................................8-8


Part Ill.   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

A. Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................HI-I

B. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ..........................................111-2
       1. Alternative #1: Approve the TCMP (Preferred Alternative) ........................111-2
      2. Alternative #2 Deny Approval of the TCMP ..................................111-7
      3. Alternative #3: Delay Approval of the TCMP ..................................m11-8
      4. Programmatic Reasons for Denying or Delaying Approval ........................111-8

C. Description of the Affected Environment ...........................................111-14
       1. Physical Environment ....................................................111-14
      2. Natural Resources .......................................................111- 15
           a. Waters of the Open Gulf of Mexico .....................................111-15
           b. Waters under Tidal Influence ...........................................H1-16
           c. Submerged Lands ....................................................HI-17
           d. Coastal Wetlands ....................................................111-18
           e. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .........................................111-19
           f. Tidal Sand or Mud Flats ...............................................1H-19
           g. Oyster Reefs ........................................................1HI-19
           h. Hard Substrate Reefs .................................................11-19
           i. Coastal Shore Areas .................................................. 111-20
          j. Gulf Beaches ........................................................HI-20
           k. Critical Dune Areas ..................................................HI-21
           1. Coastal Hazard Areas .................................................111-21
          m. Special Hazard Areas .................................................111-22
          n. Critical Erosion Areas .................................................HI-22
           o. Coastal Barriers .....................................................HI-22
          p. Historic Coastal Areas ................................................111-23
           q. Coastal Preserves ....................................................HI-23
      3. Human Environment/Environmental Quality ...................................111-25
          a. Mineral Exploration and Related Activities ...............................111-25
          b. Federal Outer Continental Shelf Activities ................................HI-26
          c. Chemical and Petrochemical Manufacturing and Waste Management ...........111-27
          d. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater .....................................111-28
          e. Emission of Air Pollutants .............................................111-28
          f. Navigation .........................................................111-28
          g. Commercial and Recreational Fishing/Boating .............................HI-32
          h. Dredging ...........................................................HI-35
          i. Shipping and Operational Activities .....................................111-36


                                            x







                        j. Shoreline Development ................................................111-37
                        k. Industrial/Commercial Development .....................................111-37
                        1. Residential Development ..............................................111-40
                        m. Public Beach Access .................................................111-41
                        n. Erosion Response ....................................................111-42
                        o. Storms, Hurricanes, and Flooding .......................................111-43
                        p. Subsidence .........................................................111-43
                        q. Infrastructure ....................................................... 111-45
                        r. Water Development ...................................................III-45
                        s. Transportation ......................................................111-46
                        t. Public Utilities / Public Facilities ........................................111-48
                        u. Agriculture .........................................................111-48
                        v. Aquaculture .........................................................111-49
                        w. Coastal Tourism and Recreation ........................................111-49

             D. Environmental Consequences ....................................................111-52
                       1. Introduction ..........................................................111-52
                       2. Direct Effects ........................................................111-52

             E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ........................................111-59

             F. Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
             Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ...............................111-60

             G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..............................111-61


             Part IV.    LIST OF PREPARERS

             Part V.    LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
                           RECEIVING COPIES OF FEIS

             Part VI.   REFERENCES-FEIS

             Part VII.  PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DEIS AND RESPONSES TO
                           COMMENTS

                                                     APPENDICES


                    Appendix A ......................................................... Acronyms

                    Appendix B ..............................................Coastal Coordination Act

                    Appendix C ........................... Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules
                           Appendix Cl ............................ Rules For Program Goals and Policies
                           Appendix C2 ...................................Rules for the TCMP Boundary
                           Appendix C3 ...................... Rules for State and Local Consistency Review
is Appendix C4 ............................ Rules for Federal Consistency Review


                                                        xi







      Appendix D ............................ List of Networked Agency Statutory Authorities

      Appendix E ..............................................Memoranda of Agreement
             Appendix El ...................Council and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MOA
             Appendix E2 .........................State Agency MOAs on Rule Certification

      Appendix F ........................ Narrative Boundary Description and Boundary Maps

      Appendix G .....................Description of Texas Coastal Nonpoint-Source Program

      Appendix H ..................................Summary of National Interest Statements



                                     FIGURES

1.  Texas Coastal Management Program Boundary ....................... Part II 2-3
2.  Proposed Federal Consistency Time Lines ........................... Part II 5-14
3.  Navigable Channels on the Texas Gulf Coast .......................... Part 111-30
4. Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ................................... Part 111-31
5.  Percent Composition of Texas's Beach Debris ......................... Part 111-38
6.    Percentage of Spills per Region, Calendar Year 1992 .................... Part 111-39
7. Texas Gulf Coast Index Map .................................... Appendix F-5
8.  Index Map of the Beaumont-Port Arthur Area ...................... Appendix F-6
9.  Index Map of the Galveston-Houston Area ......................... Appendix F-7
10. Index Map of the Bay City-Freeport Area .......................... Appendix F-8
11. Index Map of the Port Lavaca Area ............................... Appendix F-9
12. Index Map of the Corpus Christi Area ............................ Appendix F-1O
13. Index Map of the Kingsville Area ............................... Appendix F-I1
14.  Index Map of the Brownsville-Harlingen Area ..................... Appendix F-12


                                     TABLES

1.  Excluded Federal Lands in the Texas Coastal Zone .....................Part 11 2-6
2.  Statewide Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation .................... Part 11 6-15
3.    Major Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation
             in the Galveston Bay System ................................ Part 11 6-16
4. Top 25 U.S. Ports - 1992 .......................................... Part 111-33
5.  Tonnage Handled by Texas Ports, 1989-1992 .......................... Part 111-34
6.    National Flood Insurance Program, Status
            of Communities ........................................... Part 111-44







                                         xii















  Part I

OVERVIEW







                                   PART I OVERVIEW

A.     Summary of the Texas Coastal Management Promram

       While significant population growth and economic development along the Texas Coast
have brought economic opportunity to the coast, they have also resulted in the loss or
degradation of dune complexes, coastal wetlands and other critical aquatic sites; changes to bay
and estuarine water quality; and added demands and limitations on coastal access. Also,
increased coastal development has meant that greater numbers of persons and structures are
vulnerable to coastal erosion, whether natural or human induced, and subject to coastal flooding,
storm surge, and wind damage. The success of Texas' ports has resulted in the need for
increased dredging and attendant dredged material disposal. Set against this background, Texas'
fragmented government structure was not addressing these priority issues in a comprehensive,
coordinated, and efficient manner. Consequently, it was within this context that the State
developed its Coastal Management Program.

       The Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP) is based primarily on the Coastal
Coordination Act of 1991 (33 TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½201 et. seq.) as amended by HB
3226 (1995), which calls for the development of a comprehensive coastal program based on
existing statutes and regulations. Key elements of the Coastal Coordination Act and its
implementation regulations (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½501, 503, 505, and 506) include:

  *   establishment of the Coastal Coordination Council (Council) to develop policy and
       oversee implementation of the TCMP;

       development of a uniform set of coastal goals and policies;

  *   establishment of the fundamental legal requirements that selected "networked" state
       agencies and local governments must comply with, and enforcement of the uniform
       policies when the networked agencies take an action or develop rules that may adversely
       affect a coastal natural resource area;

  *   establishment of the scope and organizational framework of the program; and the
       program boundaries, designation of the Areas of Particular Concern (coastal natural
       resource areas) and the activities subject to the program through designation of specific
       networked agencies and local governments and authorities that are subject to, and will
       implement, the coastal policies;

 ï¿½ establishment of procedures to ensure networked state agency and local government
       implementation and adherence to the uniform policies, including rule certification and
       state consistency review (Council review);

 *    establishment of procedures to ensure that Federal activities will comply with the state's
       coastal policies;

 *    establishment of mechanisms such as the Council to ensure implementation of, and
       adherence to, the coastal policies; and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 1                              August 1996







  *   establishment of the procedures for enforcement of the TCMP by the networked agencies
       and the Council and Attorney General's Office.

1. Scone of the Proaram

       The Coastal Coordination Act establishes the geographic scope of the program by
identifying the program's inland, interstate and seaward boundaries (described in Part II Chapter
Two and Appendix F). The program's seaward boundary is the State's territorial seaward limit
(10.3 miles). The State's inland boundary is based on the State's Coastal Facilities Designation
Line (CFDL). The CFDL was developed in response to the Oil Spill Act of 1990 and basically
delineates those areas in which oil spills would affect coastal waters or resources. For the
purposes of the TCMP, the CFDL has been modified somewhat to capture wetlands in upper
reaches of tidal waters. The program boundaries encompass all or portions of 19 coastal counties
including Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio,
Calhoun, Victoria, Jackson, Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston, Harris, Chambers, Liberty,
Jefferson, and Orange counties and overall include roughly 8.9 million acres of land and water.

       Within this coastal zone boundary, the scope of the TCMP's regulatory program is
focused on the direct management of fourteen generic "Areas of Particular Concern," called
coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs). These CNRAs are associated with valuable coastal
resources or vulnerable or unique coastal areas and include: waters of the open Gulf of Mexico;
waters under tidal influence; submerged lands; coastal wetlands; seagrasses; tidal sand and mud
flats; oyster reefs; hard substrate reefs; coastal barriers; coastal shore areas; Gulf beaches; critical
dune areas; special hazard areas; critical erosion areas; coastal historic areas; and coastal
preserves. Specifically, the geographic scope of the regulatory programs is based on the direct
regulatory jurisdiction of those "networked" state agency and local government authorities which
are subject to the program as provided by the Coastal Coordination Act. It should be noted that
the geographic scope extends upstream 200 miles from the mouths of rivers draining into coastal
bays and estuaries in order to manage water appropriations on those rivers. In addition, the State
has designated the Western Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning area as the geographical
area in which Federal consistency shall apply outside of the coastal boundary. The TCMP also
identifies those Federal lands which are excluded from the State's coastal zone.

       Land and water uses subject to the program generally include: the siting, construction,
and maintenance of electric generating and transmission facilities; oil and gas exploration and
production; the siting, construction, and maintenance of residential, commercial, and industrial
development on beaches, critical dune areas, shorelines, and within or adjacent to critical areas
and other CNRAs. In addition, associated activities such as canal dredging; filling; placement of
structures for shoreline access and shoreline protection; on-site sewage disposal, stormwater
control, and waste management for local governments and municipalities; the siting,
construction, and maintenance of public buildings and public works such as dams, reservoirs,
flood control projects and associated activities; the siting, construction, and maintenance of
roads, highways, bridges, causeways, airports, railroads, and non-energy transmission lines and
associated activities; certain agricultural and silvicultural activities; water impoundments and
diversions; the siting, construction, and maintenance of marinas, state-owned fishing cabins,
artificial reefs, public recreational facilities, structures for shoreline access and shoreline
protection, and boat ramps.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part I- 2                               August 1996







                      The uses and activities subject to the TCMP are, more specifically, those uses and
               activities managed by "networked" state agency and local government authorities, identified in
i s            the Council rules at 31 TAC ï¿½505.12 and listed in Part II Chapter Four. Land and water uses
               exempted from the program include those land and water uses exempted by statute or rule in the
               networked authorities and identified in Part II Chapter Four.

               2. Program Goals and Policies

                      The policy framework is built around a uniform set of coastal goals and policies adopted
               by the Council at 31 TAC ï¿½501. The goals of the TCMiP are:

                  1. to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and
                      values of CNRAs;

                 2.  to ensure sound management of all coastal resources by allowing for compatible
                      economic development and multiple human uses of the coastal zone;

                 3.  to minimize loss of human life and property due to the impairment and loss of protective
                      features of CNRAs;

                 4.  to ensure and enhance planned public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone in a
                      manner that is compatible with private property rights and other uses of the coastal zone;

                 5.  to balance the benefits from economic development and multiple human uses of the
                      coastal zone, the benefits from protecting, preserving, restoring, and enhancing CNRAs,
                      the benefits from minimizing loss of human life and property, and the benefits from
                      public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone;

                 6.  to coordinate agency and local government decision-making affecting CNRAs by
                      establishing clear, objective policies for the management of CNRAs;

                 7.  to make agency and local government decision-making affecting CNRAs efficient by
                      identifying and addressing duplication and conflicts among local, state, and Federal
                      regulatory and other programs for the management of CNRAs;

                 8.  to make agency and local government decision-making affecting CNRAs more effective
                      by employing the most comprehensive, accurate, and reliable information and scientific
                      data available and by developing, distributing for public comment, and maintaining a
                      coordinated, publicly accessible geographic information system of maps of the coastal
                      zone and CNRAs at the earliest possible date;

                 9.  to make coastal management processes visible, coherent, accessible, and accountable to
                      the people of Texas by providing for public participation in the ongoing development and
                      implementation of the TCMP; and

                10.  to educate the public about the principal coastal problems of state concern and technology
                      available for the protection and improved management of CNRAs.

              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 3                              August 1996







       The coastal policies (which are described in Part II Chapter Four, and Appendix C ) are
primarily performance standards intended to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for adverse
impacts to the CNRAs. The policies address the protection of coastal resources including
beaches and dune systems, submerged lands, wetlands, seagrass beds, tidal flats, oyster beds and
other habitats as well as protection of coastal bays and estuaries (e.g., water quality and
freshwater inflows). The policies also provide for maintenance and enhancement of public
access to Gulf beaches, and the management of coastal development on beaches and in dunes and
coastal hazard areas. The policies also provide for the management of specific land and water
uses including electric generating facilities; oil and gas exploration and production; hazardous
and solid waste facilities; large scale developments; construction of waterfront facilities such as
marinas, wharves, and bulkheads; dredging and filling, and dredged material disposal;
transportation projects; and levees and flood control projects. While the coastal policies as
adopted by the Council reflect mostly existing policies, they also include enhancements to core
policies related to managing "critical areas" (e.g., coastal wetlands, seagrasses and tidal sand and
mud flats), dredging and dredged material disposal, submerged lands, beaches and dunes, and
erosion areas.

3. Program Organization and Implementation

       The TCMP is a networked program that will be implemented primarily through eight
state agencies, 18 local governments, and the Council. The program will rely primarily on direct
state control of land and water uses, although local governments will implement state guidelines
related to beach and dune management. Implementation and enforcement of the coastal policies
is primarily the responsibility of the networked agencies and local governments through their
existing statutes, regulatory programs or other authorizations. Networked agencies include: the
General Land Office/School Land Board, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Railroad Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Transportation Commission,
Texas Historical Commission, the Public Utility Commission, the Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board, and the Texas Water Development Board. Similarly, 18 county and
municipal governments, in those counties with barrier islands, are also networked entities with
responsibilities for program implementation vis-a-vis beaches and dunes.

       The Coastal Coordination Act mandates that these networked agencies and local
governments undertake specified actions, authorizations, and rulemaking in compliance with the
TCMP policies as well as enforce relevant provisions of the TCMP through their regulatory
processes. The Coastal Coordination Act also requires each networked agency or local
government to issue a formal consistency determination that the project or authorization is
consistent with the State's coastal policies when proposing an action subject to the TCMP. This
decision can be contested by third parties, state agencies, or Council member agencies either
administratively or judicially and, if necessary, forms the basis for Council reviews of these
actions for consistency. A brief summary of the networked agencies and authorities is provided
below.

Protection of Critical Areas

       The School Land Board/General Land Office (SLB/GLO), Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Railroad Commission (RRC), and Texas Parks and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 4                             August 1996







Wildlife Department (TPWD) will all implement various coastal policies to manage development
in and to protect critical wetlands and other aquatic habitats pursuant to their authorities related
to water quality standards and Section 401 certifications, submerged lands approvals, and permits
for dredging and mining.

Barrier Islands: Shoreline Access. Dune Protection. and Hazard Mitigation

       City and county governments in those counties with barrier islands will implement the
TCMP policies related to preservation of beach access and dune protection through development
of Beach Access and Dune Protection Plans consistent with the TCMP policies per the Open
Beaches Act and Dune Protection Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapters 61 and 63), as
amended by SB 1053 (1991) and floodplain requirements (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
Chapter 33). These plans must address development adjacent to public beaches and within
critical dune areas and must address maintenance or enhancement of public access to beaches,
impacts to dunes, construction practices to minimize damage from flooding and storm surge, and
use and placement of erosion control structures. Once the plans are certified by the SLB/GLO
and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to be consistent with these requirements, local
governments may issue beachfront construction certificates and dune protection permits to
implement the policy. The SLB/GLO and OAG review and comment on these certificates and
permits and the OAG, GLO or local district attorney may initiate legal action if local permits are
inconsistent with TCMP policy. In addition, the TNRCC and Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) will implement policies related to managing undeveloped areas of
barrier islands through approval of special districts and transportation projects on barrier islands
(TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 50 and TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6663).

Protection of Estuaries and Coastal Water Oualitv

       The SLB/GLO, TNRCC, RRC, and TPWD will implement the TCMP policies related to
dredging, dredged material disposal and beneficial uses of dredged material through submerged
lands authorities (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapter 33); water quality standards and
Section 401 certification authority (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 26); and TPWD
dredging and mining permits (PARKS & WILDLIFE CODE ANN. Chapter 86). The SLB/GLO
will implement policies related to construction of structures and marinas on state-owned
submerged lands through submerged lands authorities. The TNRCC and RRC will implement
policies to manage wastewater discharges through State Water Pollution Control authority (TEX.
WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 26 and TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapter 91). The
TNRCC will implement policies to manage the impacts of water appropriations through permits
for water diversions (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 11). The TNRCC will manage
impacts from on-site sewage systems and underground storage tanks though on-site disposal
system authorities (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 26 and TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE Chapter 166). The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) will
implement policies to mange nonpoint-source impacts from agricultural and silvicultural
activities (TAC Chapter 201 and TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 26)





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part I-5                                August 1996







Coastal Erosion

       The local governments in concert with the GLO will implement the TCMP policies to
manage impacts of erosion on Gulf beaches and coastal development, as well as impacts of
coastal development which can cause coastal erosion, through the beach access and dune
protection authorities (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapters 61 and 63) and submerged lands
authorities. Regarding bay shores, the SLB/GLO will implement coastal policies through the
issuance of leases and easements for erosion control structures on state-owned submerged lands.
Anticipated management activities include the development of a coastwide policy for managing
coastal erosion that will identify Texas Gulf beaches that are eroding and rank them from most to
least critical, and the implementation of a comprehensive long-term management plan for the
restoration of Texas' critically eroding beaches pursuant to Senate Bill 1053. This coastwide
erosion response plan will be submitted to the legislature with recommended actions. The
coastwide erosion response plan will be the basis for prioritization of shore protection and
restoration projects.

Historic/Cultural Resources

       The Texas Historical Commission will implement the TCMP policies related to
conserving coastal historic resources through permits and other management activities pursuant
to the Antiquities Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapter 91)

Major Develorpment

       The Public Utility Commission will implement the TCMIP policies to manage
development of power plants and transmission lines through certificates of convenience and
necessity (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c). TxDOT will implement policies to
manage the impacts of transportation projects through its approvals of these projects (TEX. REV.
CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6663, and art. 6674). TNRCC will implement policies related to
managing impacts from levees and flood control projects through its approvals of these projects
(TEX. WATER CODE ANN. Chapter 16).

Coastal Coordination Council

       The Coastal Coordination Act established the Coastal Coordination Council, which
consists of the heads of the State's resource agencies and four gubernatorial appointees
representing local governments, agriculture, coastal business, and coastal citizens. The Council
is responsible for: (1) policy development and policy coordination through promulgation of the
uniform coastal policies; (2) program oversight and dispute resolution through the state
consistency review procedures and agency rule certification and decertification; and (3)
implementation of Federal consistency authority through reviews of Federal activities. While the
networked state agencies and local governments are required by the Coastal Coordination Act to
undertake actions in compliance with the coastal policies, the Coastal Coordination Act provides
for oversight by the Council and a number of mechanisms to ensure that networked agencies and
local governments comply with the coastal policies. I



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 6                              August 1996







                      The Coastal Coordination Act and Council rules at 31 TAC ï¿½505 authorize and establish
               a process for the Council, in conjunction with the OAG, to review networked state agency and
is local government proposed actions and, if necessary, take legal action to ensure compliance with
               TCMP policy (see discussion in Part II Chapter Five). In order for an agency or local
               government action to be reviewed, the proposed action must be referred to the Council by a
               person, state agency or Council member and accepted for review by three or more Council
               members. If the Council accepts referral of an agency or local government action, and two-thirds
               of the Council members find the action to be inconsistent, the Council will issue findings and
               recommendations to the agency or local government proposing the action. If the agency does not
               comply with those recommendations the Council can request an OAG opinion and if the OAG
               concurs, a suit can be filed in court to ensure that the agency's action is consistent.

                      In practice, it is anticipated that the Council's oversight role will be limited to the review
               of major actions and cases requiring dispute resolution. The TCMP includes incentives (rule
               certification and thresholds for referral) for agencies to ensure that their operating rules are
               consistent with the coastal policies. While not mandated by the Coastal Coordination Act, nor
               required in order to implement the coastal policies, the rule certification procedures provide for a
               voluntary process whereby agencies can submit their existing rules, new rules, or rule
               amendments to the Council for review. If an agency's rules are found to "incorporate or
               otherwise require compliance with the coastal policies" then the Council will certify those
               agency rules as consistent. Upon a determination that the agency's rules are consistent--which
               may require rulemaking on the part of the networked agencies and local governments--the
               agency's rules would be incorporated as part of the TCMP's coastal policies and the agency can
               establish thresholds for referral to limit Council review of its proposed actions. The ability to
               limit the Council's review to major actions, therefore, should provide the incentive for an agency
               to submit its rules for certification. The networked agencies and local governments have
               developed agreements with the Council committing them to submit their existing and future rules
               to the Council for certification.

                      In addition, the Council has other means to ensure that agency actions are in compliance
               with the TCMP. The TCMP includes provisions and mechanisms for the Council to monitor
               state agency and local government implementation and enforcement of the program. The
               Council will review quarterly and annual reports developed by the networked agencies that detail
               the implementation of the coastal program and future agency rulemaking. If the Council finds
               that an agency has not complied with the coastal policies in implementing its authorities or has
               amended or developed new rules that are not consistent with the coastal policies, then the
               Council can issue a "Notice of Program Deficiency" with recommendations for remedying those
               deficiencies. If the networked agency fails to remedy the problems in a reasonable time the
               Council can revoke the agency's rule certification, which would void any thresholds for referral
               limiting the Council's ability to review that agency's proposed actions.

                      The Coastal Coordination Act also provides for a voluntary provision to allow agencies
               to ensure that agency or local government plans which will guide agency decision-making, are
               consistent with the coastal policies. The Council may provide, if requested by a state agency or
               local government, a non-binding advisory opinion on the proposed plans. Council participation
               in the planning process should help identify consistency issues well before actions are proposed
               and thereby could improve compliance with coastal policies.

               Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 7                            August 1996







       Also, the Council will be the State entity responsible for Federal consistency reviews
pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Council has
developed Federal consistency procedures (31 TAC ï¿½506) and will conduct reviews of Federal i
agency activities to ensure that they are consistent with the Federally approved enforceable
policies of the TCMP. The GLO and the Executive Committee of the Council will assist the
Council with reviews by preparing initial staff recommendations to Council members. The
TCMiP also provides for the use of "Interagency Coordination Groups" (see below) to assist the
Council in its reviews of Federal development projects.

Permnitting Assistance GrouD/Preliminarv Reviews

       The Coastal Coordination Act provides new mechanisms to improve compliance with
policies as well as streamline the pernitting process--the preliminary consistency review process
and the Permitting Assistance Group (PAG). Preliminary reviews will be used to identify
potential consistency issues early on, and indicate what changes are necessary for the applicant to
make to comply with the coastal policies before the applicant is too invested in a particular
course of action. The PAG, which consists of staff level members from the principal networked
agencies, will conduct the preliminary reviews. The PAG will also provide technical assistance
to the applicant not only to improve compliance with the coastal policies, but to assist applicants
move through the permitting/approval process as quickly as possible. Where there is adequate
information and public comment, the Executive Committee (see below) with assistance from the
PAG, can make preliminary consistency findings, which will preclude the need for the full
Council to review that action unless there are significant changes to the action.

Advisory Committee

       Texas will use an additional mechanism to ensure continued public and governmental
participation in the TCMP and to assist with public outreach and education. The Council will
establish a citizens advisory committee to provide enhanced opportunities for public input into
program implementation. The Advisory Committee, expected to be established in October 1996,
will be responsible for identifying significant or emerging issues; hosting local meetings or
workshops, and disseminating information on the program to the general public. The Council is
considering establishing regional subcommittees as part of the Advisory Committee structure,
but no decision has been made as of this date.

Executive Committee of the Council

       The Executive Committee, which consists of senior management level representatives of
the Council members, will be responsible for implementing Council directives, providing
recommendations for most issues addressed by the Council, issuing preliminary consistency
findings; and assisting in policy development.

Interaeencv Coordination GrounDs

       The Coastal Coordination Act also provides for the establishment of Interagency
Coordination Groups (IC Gs) to assist Federal agencies in developing projects that are consistentS
with the Federally approved TCMP policies and assist the Council in carrying out Federal

Texas Coastal Management Program Final Els  part 1- 8                             August 1996







consistency reviews for those activities. ICGs are composed of representatives of Federal and
state resource agencies (at least three Council member agency representatives), and local
sponsors of the particular project. The ICGs will work with the Federal agency to develop a
project that will be consistent with the coastal policies. If the Federal agency then submits a
consistency determination that follows the ICG's recommendations (and which a majority of the
Council member representatives on the ICG have determined to be consistent) then the Council
will automatically concur with the Federal agency's consistency determination.

Lead Coastal Agencv: Texas General Land Office

       The Governor designated the GLO to be the lead coastal agency for the purposes of
receiving and administering Federal CZMA funds. The GLO will also be responsible for
monitoring the implementation of the coastal policies by the agencies and local governments.
The GLO also serves as staff for the Council, implements the state lands authorities, co-
administers the beach dune regulations with the OAG, and will play an important role in public
education and outreach.

4. Other Special Planning Reauirements of the CZMA

       The CZMA requires that states specifically address the issue of shoreline erosion,
shorefront access, and consideration of the national interest in facility siting, designating special
management areas for preservation and restoration, public participation, and plan coordination as
part of program development. The TCMP responses to these requirements are found in Part II
Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight.


























Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part I- 9                               August 1996







B.     Changes The Promram Will Make

       The TCMP will better manage coastal development to enhance and protect natural
resources. There are four principal areas in which the TCMP enhances Texas' management of its
natural resources and improves government processes: (1) government accountability,
responsiveness, and coordination; (2) dredging in bays and estuaries; (3) development on beach
and dune systems and coastal hazard areas along Gulf shorelines; and (4) development in coastal
wetlands and other aquatic sites.

1. Government Accountability. Restnonsiveness. and Coordination

       Texas' fragmented government structure frustrates the development of comprehensive
coastal policy and management mechanisms. For example, response to shoreline erosion has
been hampered by the lack of a clear state policy and confusion over state, Federal, and local
roles and responsibilities. The lack of a meaningful coordination mechanism to move agencies
to address this critical coastal issue sparked public support for a coastal management program
and resulted in the Texas Legislature creating the Council.

       For the first time, the Council provides a single public forum in which the public and
permit applicants can address all the policy makers at one time and the agency heads can
communicate and work together on policy issues. This increased accountability will increase
both the efficiency and effectiveness of Texas' response to priority coastal issues such as
shoreline erosion and loss of coastal wetlands and other critical areas.

       The TCMP will foster improved accountability, responsiveness, and coordination among
numerous Federal, state, and local governmental agencies with jurisdiction in the coastal area
though the Council's promulgation of uniform coastal policies. The establishment of the Council
and the state consistency review procedures for both issuance of permits and rulemaking actions
provide a forum for effective resolution of disputes over the interpretation of coastal policy.
Compliance with coastal policy will be enhanced as a result of the requirement of the GLO and
Council to monitor all state agency and local government implementation with annual reports to
the Council and legislature.

       In addition, the TCMP will simultaneously foster permit simplification and improved
compliance with the State's coastal policies. Permit applicants will receive technical assistance
from the PAG and preliminary consistency findings issued by the Executive Committee of the
Council. These and other provisions-- such as coordinated review of multi-permit projects and
joint consideration of cumulative and secondary impacts from major actions-will facilitate
identification of problems with proposed coastal projects. The TCMP will help ensure projects
are designed to meet all applicable requirements and that potentially costly and time-consuming
interagency disputes are resolved quickly. The TCMP will also provide for joint public notice
for state and Federal wetlands permitting requirements.

2. Dredcing in Coastal Waters

       The TCMP includes a process for creating a long-term plan for dredging and the disposal
or placement of dredged material. More than 770 miles of commercially navigable waterways

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 10                             August 1996







           have been dredged through Texas' coastal waters. Ongoing maintenance of these waterways
           results in approximately 30 to 40 million cubic yards of material being dredged annually.
0       ~     ~~Extensive dredging is also conducted by state, local, and private concerns done within the coastal
           zone. Records from the Corps' Galveston District regulatory program indicate that 90 navigation
           related permits were issued in 1995.

                   The TCMP policy recognizes the importance of dredging to ports and commerce and
           reflects the State's conclusion that dredged material is a resource that can be used beneficially to
           slow shoreline erosion, create coastal wetlands, and serve other beneficial purposes. The TCMP
           requires beneficial use of dredged material under circumstances outlined in the dredge policy,
           and discussed in Chapter Four. This policy provides a balance between the competing national
           and state interests in ports and navigation and protection and restoration of important coastal
           resources. The TCMIP will also require mitigation of the impacts from dredging and dredged
           material disposal practices. In particular, the TCMP establishes a preferred sequence of dredged
           material disposal, maximizing beneficial use, upland and contained disposal, while minim'izn
           open bay disposal, thus ensuring that navigation concerns are satisfied in a manner sensitive to
           the coast and other coastal resource users.

                   The TCMP incorporates an innovative technique that uses the State's Federal consistency
           review authority as a long range planning tool. Over the first three to five years of Federal
           approval of the TCMP, the Council and the Corps of Engineers will review all coastal waterways
           to determine whether current commnercial dredging and dredged material disposal and placement
           practices can be improved. Where changes to current practices would incur additional costs,
           time is allowed to obtain the necessary funds before the changes are implemented. This will
           result in greater beneficial use of the dredged material and improved disposal and placement
           practices.

           3. Development on the Gulf of Mexico Shoreline

                   Public support for a coastal management program resulted in the Texas Legislature
           enacting amendments to the Open Beaches Act, Dune Protection Act, and statutes authorizing
           coastal cities and counties to adopt floodplain development ordinances. These amendments gave
           the GLO and local governments the authority to manage development in the beach/dune system
           and coastal hazard areas along the Gulf shoreline. In 1993, the GLO adopted rules under which
           local governments developed local plans for permitting development in these areas. The rules
           require that development be planned so that public access to beaches is preserved and improved,
           destruction of dunes is avoided, and erosion, storm, and flood hazards are minimized. All 18
           local governments have received GLO approval for their plans and are actively managing that
           development. This program will improve local government capacity to manage coastal
           development to better protect dunes and public beaches.

                  While direct permitting authority resides at the local level, the State maintains active
           policy authority and oversight over the beach and dune program. The GLO retains authority to
           establish minimum dune protection and beach access standards. The OAG and GLO receive and
           review all local permits. Finally, the GLO and OAG may take direct enforcement action for

           violations of the beach/dune rules.

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- I1I                            August 1996







4. Development of Coastal Wetlands and Other Critical Areas

       Development of the TCMP resulted in three state agencies adopting new rules for                 O
management of coastal wetlands, seagrasses, tidal sand and mud flats, oyster reefs, and hard
substrate reefs. Collectively, these are known as "critical areas." The TNRCC, RRC, and SLB
adopted rules governing their respective authorities over development in critical areas. Before
the TCMP, these agencies issued authorizations using a variety of different written and unwritten
policies. Each agency's rules now require application of a mitigation sequence (avoid, minimize,
and mitigate) currently used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers (Corps). The policy also establishes a uniform state compensatory mitigation policy
for unavoidable impacts. Finally, the policy prohibits activities if they would result in significant
degradation to critical areas.

       As a result, the five agencies responsible for managing coastal wetlands in Texas' coastal
zone will now operate under clearer, more comprehensive, and uniform standards. This will
make critical area management in the coastal zone both more effective in terms of critical areas
protection and more efficient in terms of intergovernmental coordination, predictability, and
responsiveness.

5. Program Obiectives and Action Items

       Texas intends to use Section 306, 306A and other Federal CZMA funds to further
advance the program goals and address the priority issues identified above. The Council has
established seven broad priorities that will be used to allocate CZMA funding. These priority
areas include:

  1.  Coastal Natural Hazards Response - TCMP monies can help enhance local government
       capacity to respond to coastal natural hazards such as erosion and flooding by funding
       local planning and management efforts.

  2.  CriticalAreas Enhancement - Wetlands, seagrasses, oyster reefs, and tidal sand and mud
       flats are widely recognized as being of great value. Unfortunately, because these coastal
       natural resources are susceptible to many threats, they are still being lost and degraded.
       TCMP funds can be used to help state and local governments manage critical areas within
       their jurisdictions.

  3.  Shoreline Access - Texas has one of the strongest sets of laws in the Nation protecting
       public access to the beach. However, increased shoreline development makes meeting
       the shoreline access needs of the public a challenge. TCMP funds can be used to plan for
       and acquire access corridors and enhance existing access sites (e.g., off-beach parking,
       public bathrooms).

  4.   Waterfront Revitalization and Ecotourism Development - CZMA funds can be used to
       revitalize urban waterfronts to provide enhanced recreational opportunities and boost
       local economies and to develop local plans for ecotourism.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 12                             August 1996







                 5.  Permit Streamlining/Assistance and Governmental Coordination -A common complaint
                      of coastal citizens and business persons is that the various levels of government do not act
                      in concert. Such fragmentation and incoordination result in time delays and last-minute
                      changes in projects that cost businesses and individuals money. TCMP funds can be used
                      to streamline permitting processes and to provide technological and technical assistance.

                 6.  Information and Data Availability - Government efforts at improving resource
                     management are often hampered by lack of basic information. TCMP funds can be used
                     to develop the baseline data and maps necessary for sound implementation of the TCMP
                     goals and policies.

                 7.  Public Education and Outreach - Conveying the meaning of laws and regulations to the
                     regulated public in an appropriate format rarely receives high priority. TCMP funds can
                     be used to develop and distribute public education materials such as user's manuals and to
                     host public meetings, workshops, and conferences where technical information can be
                     exchanged and training can be obtained.

              6. Effects of Federal Approval

                     The principal anticipated effects of Federal program approval are fourfold. First, Federal
              CZMA funds (anticipated to be roughly 2.2 million dollars annually) will be available to Texas
              to assist in program implementation activities by the state and local entities. The funds will be
              used to address the seven broad priorities established by the Council identified above.

0                    Second, program approval will also activate the Federal consistency provisions of the
              CZMA, which require that Federal activities, Federally licensed and permitted activities, and
              Federal assistance to state and local governments be consistent with the Federally approved
              enforceable policies of the TCMP.

                     Third, Federal approval will ensure that varied national interests will be considered and
              weighed when the State is making decisions with regard to the coast.

                     Finally, Federal approval of the TCMP will ensure that interested parties in the State are
              eligible to apply for a deepwater port license from the U.S. Coast Guard, pursuant to the
              Deepwater Port Act of 1974, by meeting one of the critical eligibility requirements of the
              Deepwater Port Act. A more detailed description of the effects of Federal approval of the TCMP
              is provided in Part III (B), Alternatives to the Proposed Action, and Part Ill (D), Environmental
              Consequences.








e

              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 13                             August 1996







C. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

       In response to intense pressure on coastal resources, and because of the importance of
coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended [CZMA] (16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq.). The Act authorizes a Federal program to
encourage coastal states and territories to develop comprehensive coastal management programs.
The program is administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn has delegated this
responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (NOAA). Currently, 29 states have coastal programs approved
by NOAA.

       The CZMA affirms the national interest in the effective protection and careful
development of the coastal zone by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal states to
voluntarily develop and implement management programs for their coastal areas. The CZMA
authorizes financial assistance grants under Section 305 for program development and Section
306 for program implementation to provide coastal states and territories with the means for
achieving these objectives. Section 305 of the CZMA, allowing for Federal financial assistance
to states to develop state coastal management programs, was re-authorized by Congress in the
1990 amendments to the CZMA (PL 10 1-508, November 5, 1990). NOAA awarded Texas a
CZMA Section 305 grant of $200,000 on July 1, 1992, to complete development of the TCMP,
with subsequent grants of $200,000 in 1993 and $1 10,000 in 1995.

       Sections 305, 306, and 307 of the CZMA and implementing regulations published on
March 28, 1979 (44 CFR Part 18595) as codified at 15 CFR Part 923, provide the requirements
and procedures for state program development and Federal approval. In summary, the
requirements for program approval are that a state develop a management program that among
other things:

  I1. Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the CZMA that require
       management or protection by the state or territorial government;

  2.  Re-examines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These
       policies must be specific, comprehensive, and enforceable, and must provide an adequate
       degree of predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed;

  3.  Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the
       management program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. Uses and areas
       subject to management should be based on resource capability and suitability analyses
       and socio-economic considerations;

  4.  Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the management program;

  S.  Provides for consideration of the national interest in planning for and siting of facilities;
       and

  6.  Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational structure to implement the
       program and to ensure conformance to it.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 14                            August 1996







       In arriving at these substantive aspects of the program, states are obligated to follow an
open process which involves providing information to and considering the interests of the
general public, interest groups, local governments, and regional, state, interstate, and Federal
agencies.

       Section 303 of the CZMA provides guidance on specific national objectives that warrant
full consideration during the implementation of approved state coastal management programs.

       Section 305 of the CZMA as amended by PL 101-508 in 1990 and subsequent
appropriations language authorizes annual grants to states desiring to develop a coastal
management program.

       After its management program receives Federal approval, a state is then eligible for
annual grants under Section 306 to implement its program. Section 306A of the CZMA also
provides that states may use a portion of their Section 306 awards for low cost construction
projects that result in the preservation of important natural areas, improved public access, or
renewal of urban waterfronts.

       Section 307 contains the Federal consistency provisions of the CZMA to ensure that
Federal actions are consistent with the state's Federally approved program. Paragraphs (1) and
(2) of Section 307(c) require that Federal activities and development projects in or directly
affecting the coastal zone be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with a Federally
approved state program. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Section 3 07(c) require that Federally
licensed and permitted activities affecting the coastal zone also are consistent with a Federally
approved state programs. Section 3 07(d) requires Federal assistance to state and local
governments for projects affecting the coastal zone to be consistent with a Federally approved
state management program. Federal consistency implementing regulations are found at 15 CFR
Part 930.

       Section 3 09, as amended by PL 10 1-508 in 1990, establishes a coastal enhancement grant
program. This section provides that a portion of Section 306 funds is available to states to
develop program changes which strengthen their programs' ability to address particular coastal
issues. State efforts to seek such improvements are meant to focus on priorities based on a self-
assessment of the nine objectives listed in Section 309. These objectives include stronger
wetland protection, improved management of coastal hazards. and additional public access.

       Section 312 directs the Secretary to evaluate the performance of state coastal
management programs on a continuing basis. NOAA formally reviews the implementation of
each state on a three year cycle.

       Section 3 15 establishes a National Estuarine Research Reserve Program to preserve a
representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational
purposes. There are currently no estuarine research reserve sites designated in Texas.

       The Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) established a new
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPC), in addition to updating the CZMA. The
State of Texas has agreed to submit a complete Section 6217 program within 30 months of

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 15                              August 1996







program approval (See Appendix G). After Texas submits its coastal nonpoint program, NOAA
and EPA will make a final determination regarding its compliance with Section 6217.



















































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part I- 16                            August 1996








D.    Cross Reference to Program Reauirements


  CZMA                                                                  CZMA Approval
  Section          Requirement                                          Regulations                FEIS Section

 306(d)(1)        The TCMP contains policies to adequately             15 CFR ï¿½923.3              Part II Chapter
                   manage all uses with direct and significant                                    Four
                   impacts on coastal waters and ensure protection
                   of those resources and areas that make the Texas
                   coast a unique, vulnerable or valuable area.

 306(d)(1)        The TCMP was developed after notice and with         15 CFR 923.3               Part II Chapter
                   the opportunity for full participation by Federal                              Eight
                   agencies, state agencies, local governments,
                   regional organizations, port authorities, and other
                   interested parties and individuals, public and
                   private.

 306(d)(2)(A)      The TCMP includes sufficient inland, seaward,       15 CFR ï¿½923.31- 34         Part II Chapter
                   and interstate boundaries.                                                     Two

 306(d)(2)(B)     The TCMP identifies the land and water uses          15 CFR ï¿½923.11             Part II Chapter
                   subject to the management program.                                             Four

 306(d)(2)(C)     The TCMP designates Areas of Particular              15 CFR ï¿½923.21-23          Part II Chapters
                   Concern.                                                                       Four and Six

 306(d)(2)(D)     The TCMP identifies the means by which the           15 CFR ï¿½923.40-43          Part II Chapters
                   state will exert control over the defined land and                             Four and Five
                   water uses.                                                                    and Appendices
                                                                                                 B, C, D, and E

 306(d)(2)(E)     The TCMP contains broad guidelines on                15 CFR ï¿½923.3              Part II Chapter
                   priorities of uses in particular areas, including   (923.21)                   Four and
                   those uses of lowest priority.                                                 Appendix C

 306(d)(2)(F)      The TCMP includes a description of the              15 CFR ï¿½923.46             Part II Chapter
                   organizational structure proposed to implement                                 Three and
                   the TCMP, including the responsibilities and                                   Appendix C
                   interrelationships of local, area wide, state,
                   regional, and interstate agencies in the
                   management process.

 306(d)(2)(G)     The TCMP includes a definition of the term           15 CFR ï¿½923.24             Part II Chapter
                   beach, and a planning process for the protection                               Six
                   of, and provision of access to, public beaches and
                   other public coastal areas.

 306(d)(2)(H)      The TCMP includes a planning process for            15 CFR ï¿½923.13             Part II Chapters
                   energy facilities likely to be located in, or which                            Six and Seven
                   may significantly affect, the coastal zone,
                   including a process for anticipating the
                   management of the impacts from such facilities.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS           Part I- 17                                       August 1996









                                                                      CZMA Approval
  CZMA             Requirement                                        Regulations               FEIS Section
 Section

 306(d)(2)(I)     The TCMP includes a planning process for           15 CFR ï¿½923.25            Part II Chapter
                   assessing the effects of, and studying and                                   Six
                   evaluating ways to manage the impact of,
                   shoreline erosion and for restoring areas
                   adversely affected by such erosion.

 306(d)(3)(A)    The state has coordinated the TCMP with local,      15 CFR ï¿½923.56            Part II Chapter
                   area wide, and interstate plans applicable to areas                          Six
                   within the coastal zone existing before 1/1/95.

 306(d)(3)(B)    The state has established an effective mechanism    15 CFR ï¿½923.57            Part II Chapters
                   for continuing consultation and coordination                                 Three, Six, and
                   between the Council and local governments,                                   Eight
                   interstate agencies, regional agencies, and area
                   wide agencies within the coastal boundary.

 307              The TCMP contains adequate Federal                 15 CFR ï¿½923.53 and        Part II Chapter
                   consistency procedures.                            ï¿½930 Subparts C-F         Five and
                                                                                                Appendix C

 306(d)(4)        The State has held adequate public hearings         15 CFR ï¿½923.58           Part II Chapter
                   during the development of the TCMP.                                          Eight

 306(d)(5)        The Governor has reviewed and approved the         15 CFR ï¿½923.48            Part II Chapter
                   management program and certifies that it                                     One
                   contains adequate authorities.

 306(d)(6)        The Governor has designated a lead coastal         15 CFR ï¿½923.47            Part 11 Chapters
                   agency.                                                                      One and Three


 306(d)(7)        The state is organized to implement the TCMP.      15 CFR ï¿½923.46            Part II Chapter
                                                                                                Three

 306(d)(8)        The TCMP provides for adequate consideration       15 CFR ï¿½923.52            Part II Chapter
                   of the national interest.                                                    Seven and
                                                                                                Appendix H

 306(d)(9)        The TCMP includes a program by which specific   15 CFR ï¿½923.22               Part II Chapter
                   areas may be designated for the purpose of                                   Six
                  preserving or restoring them for their
                   conservation, recreational, ecological, historical,
                   or esthetic values.












Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS          Part I- 18                                     August 1996









  CZMA                                                                CZMA Approval
  Section          Requirement                                        Regulations               FEIS Section

  306(d)(10)(A)   The state has authority for the management of the   15 CFR ï¿½923.41            Part II Chapters
  and (B)          coastal zone in accordance with the TCMP,                                    Four, Five, and
                   including the power to: a) administer land use                               Six and
                   and water use regulations to control development                             Appendices B,
                   to ensure compliance with the TCMP; b) resolve                               C, D, and E
                   conflicts among competing uses; and c) acquire
                   fee simple and less than fee simple interests in
                   land, waters, and other property through
                   condemnation or other means, where necessary.


 306(d)(10)(B)   The State has the authority to acquire interests in   15 CFR ï¿½ 923.41         Part H Chapters
                   real property when necessary to achieve                                      Four and Six
                   conformance with the management program.                                     and Appendix D

 306(d)(I 1)      The TCMP uses any one or a combination of the    15 CFR ï¿½923.41 - 44         Part II Chapters
                   following techniques for control of land uses and                            Three, Four, and
                   water uses within the coastal zone: a) state                                 Five and
                   establishment of criteria and standards for local                            Appendices B,
                   implementation; b) direct state land and water                               C, and D
                   use planning and regulation; and/or c) state
                   administrative review of development plans,
                   projects, or land and water use regulations.

 306(dX12)        The TCMP ensures that local land use and water    15 CFR ï¿½923.12             Part II Chapter
                   use regulations within the coastal boundary do                               Seven
                   not unreasonably restrict or exclude land uses
                   and water uses of regional benefit.

 306(d)(13)       The TCMP provides for an inventory and             No Regulations            Part II Chapters
                   designation of areas that contain one or more                                One, Four, and
                   coastal resources of national significance and                               Seven
                  specific and enforceable standards to protect such
                  resources.

 306(d)(14)       The TCMP provides for public participation in      No Regulations            Part II Chapters
                  permitting processes, consistency determinations,                            Three, Five, and
                   and other similar decisions.                                                 Eight and
                                                                                               Appendices C
                                                                                               and D

 306(d)(15)       The TCMP ensures that all state agencies will      No Regulations            Part II Chapters
                   adhere to the program.                                                       Three, Four, and
                                                                                               Five and
                                                                                               Appendices B
                                                                                               and C

 306(d)(16)       The TCMP contains enforceable policies and         Guidance on Coastal       Part II Chapter
                  mechanisms to implement applicable                 Nonpoint Source           Four and
                  requirements of the ï¿½6217 (g).                     Program issued            Appendix G
                                                                     January 1993.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS          Part I- 19                                     August 1996














                          Part II

            DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
         THE TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


0













                                          STATE OF TEXAS
                                    OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
GEORGE W. BUSH
  GOVERNOR                                    October 19, 1995



          Dr. D. James Baker
          Under Secretary and Administrator
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          HCHB Room 5128
          14th and Constitution Avenue N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20230

          Dear Dr. Baker:

          I hereby submit the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) to the National Oceanic
          and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval. As you are aware, I withdrew the
          previously submitted CMP to give the Texas Legislature the opportunity to review and
          revise the CMP before seel!ng NOAA approval.

          The current Texas CMP meets the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act
          (CZIMA) and will bring a coordinated approach to managing Texas' coastal resources
          without imposing unnecessary regulations on Texans. The CMP is the product of lengthy
          and difficult negotiations between groups and individuals representing diverse coastal
          interests.

          I have reviewed and certify that the State of Texas has the authority and the organization
          capabilities to implement the CMP. I further designate the General Land Office as the
          agency to receive and administer grants under the CZMA. If you have any questions
          during the review procedure, please contact Andy Barrett, my Environmental Policy
          Director, at (512) 463-2198.

          Sincerely,



          GE    . USH

          GWB:ab

          cc:    Jeff Benoit, NOAA



                   Posr OmCE Box 12428 AtusnN, TExs 78711 (512) 463-2000 (VoICE)/(512) 475-3165 CTDD)







                                        CHAPTER ONE.
is ~~~~~~~INTRODUCTION
  A. The Texas Coast

         The Texas Gulf Coast is one of the most biologically rich and ecologically diverse
  regions of the state. It comprises barrier islands and peninsulas, shallow bays and lagoons,
  marshes and tidal flats, forested areas, fertile coastal prairie, and semiarid brush country.

         The coastal environment is highly dynamic, continuously changed by tides, currents,
  wind, waves, subsidence, and periodic violent storms. But while it is a naturally resilient
  environment, human activities can, and frequently do, adversely impact coastal resources.

         More than one-third of the state's permanent population and 70 percent of its economic
  activity are located within I100 miles of the Texas coastline. The Texas coast houses half the
  nation's petrochemical industry and more than a quarter of its refining capacity. Steady growth
  of these industries, as well as burgeoning marine commerce, agriculture, commercial and
  recreational fishing, and a thriving tourist trade, has intensified competition for coastal resources.

         Continued economic and population growth are projected for the Texas coast. And as
  population and development increase, so do waste generation, environmental degradation, and
  the risks of irrevocable damage to natural systems. The loss of valuable coastal natural resources
  not only jeopardizes the environmental health of the area, but also threatens the economic health
  and the very livelihoods of coastal residents.

         While ample state and federal regulatory authority exists for the management of Texas
  coastal resources, a piecemeal approach to regulation and problem-solving has often been
  employed. Agencies or programs have been established to address single activities, resources, or
  substances in response to human health, resource management, and environmental problems.

         This splitting of regulatory authority among a number of entities has, in some cases, been
  an impediment to efficient management. Such fragmentation has the pontential to create
  inconsistencies in policies and regulations that could hamper effective resource management and
  increase the burden on the regulated community in planning operations and attempting to comply
  with environmental requirements.

  B. The Texas Coastal Managyement Progrram: A Coonerative Solution

         In the late 1980s, coastal communities initiated a grass roots campaign for state assistance
  in resolving the problem of fragmented management of coastal resources and other complex
  coastal problems that exceeded local government authority. In response to this effort, in 1989
 the Texas Legislature directed the General Land Office (GLO) to coordinate development of a
 comprehensive, long-range plan for the management of state-owned coastal lands.

         Following that first directive, the legislature enacted a series of bills which established
  authority for development of the Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP) and steered the
  course of the TCMP. The final legislative action in 1995 made a number of changes to the

  Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 1-i                         August 1996







program and renewed the state's commitment to efficient and effective coastal resource
management. This action led in October 1995 to the TCMP's final submission for federal
approval.

       The purpose of the TCMP is to improve the management of the state's coastal resources
and to ensure the long-term ecological and economic productivity of the coast, all within the
framework of the federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The TCMP is a "networked"
program linking the regulations, programs, and expertise of state, federal, and local entities that
manage various aspects of coastal resource use. Specifically, the TCMP identifies coastal natural
resource areas; identifies uses or activities that may adversely affect those areas; and sets uniform
policies to address those effects.

       Management of the program is overseen by the Coastal Coordination Council (Council),
which is chaired by the commissioner of the General Land Office. The other members of the
Council are the chair of the Parks and Wildlife Commission; the chair of the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission; the chair of the Texas Transportation Commission; the
chair of the Texas Water Development Board; a member of the Texas State Soil and Water
Conservation Board; a member of the Railroad Commission of Texas; and four gubernatorial
appointees. The gubernatorial appointees are a local elected official from the coastal area, a
coastal resident, a coastal business person, and a representative of agriculture.

       The Council is charged with adopting uniform goals and policies to guide decision-
making by all entities regulating or managing natural resource use within the Texas coastal zone,
and to review significant actions taken or authorized by state agencies and subdivisions that may
adversely affect coastal natural resources. Ultimately, the TCMP is designed to avoid
duplication of effort and conflicts in agency policies and regulatory decisions, and to address five
primary issues of concern to coastal communities: coastal erosion, wetlands protection, water
supply and water quality, dune protection, and shoreline access.



C. Princinal Issues of State Concern

Coastal Erosion

       Between the mid- I800s and 1982, more than 27,000 acres of Gulf shoreline were lost
through erosion, an average of 225 acres per year. Bay shoreline loss during the same period
averaged 287 acres per year. Over one-third of Texas Gulf beaches and up to two-thirds of Texas
bay shores are eroding.

       Erosion is caused both by natural processes and human activity. Damming rivers blocks
sediment supply, and constructing navigation and erosion response structures compounds erosion
in some areas. As a result, valuable beaches, wetlands, and agricultural, industrial, and
residential lands are being lost.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part H 1-2                          August 1996







Wetlands and Other Aouatic Resources

       Coastal wetlands are among the most valuable of coastal natural resources. They filter
pollutants from water and trap suspended materials, letting them settle to the bottom. Wetlands
help reduce shoreline erosion by absorbing and dissipating wave energy, binding and stabilizing
sediments, and increasing sediment deposition. They also protect upland areas from flooding by
storing floodwaters and reducing, capturing, and retaining surface water runoff, with the added
benefit of allowing water to infiltrate underground recharge zones. Finally, wetlands provide
valuable habitat for wildlife and plant life, a relatively safe environment for threatened and
endangered species, and important feeding and breeding places for many commercially and
recreationally valuable fish species.

       Again, both natural and human activities contribute to the destruction or degradation of
coastal wetlands. Wetlands are drained for crop and timber production and mosquito control.
They are dredged for navigation and flood protection, used as disposal sites, and filled for
commercial, residential, and industrial development. Materials such as pesticides and other
pollutants are discharged into wetlands, and their soils are mined for sand and gravel. Finally,
natural phenomena such as sea level rise, droughts, hurricanes, erosion, and habitat alterations by
wildlife can also destroy or degrade coastal wetlands.

Water Supnplv and Water Oualitv

       The element probably most essential to the continued productivity of the coastal region is
sufficient amounts of clean water. Appropriation of water rights, maintenance of adequate
freshwater inflows into bays and estuaries, and management of waste and point-source and
nonpoint-source discharges are all vital concerns.

       The productivity of fisheries depends on freshwater inflows to Texas bays and estuaries.
These inflows transport nutrients and sediments that promote estuarine productivity, while the
seasonal inundation of wetlands and periodic flushing of the bays by freshwater inflows can
remove pollutants, parasites, bacteria, and viruses harmful to the estuarine ecosystem.

       Point source discharges and nonpoint-source runoff can adversely impact coastal waster
quality. Degraded water quality can pose risks to public health, damage the biological
productivity of bays and estuaries, and interfere with public recreation and use of coastal waters.

       Since the passage of the Clean Water Act and implementation of the state's water quality
program, industrial point source discharges have been increasingly regulated and the impact of
point source discharges on coastal waters has been reduced. For example, in recent years, point
source discharges have been implicated in few shell fish bed closings. Nonpoint-source
discharges include runoff from urban areas, agriculture activities, residential lands, industrial
sites, and solid and hazardous waste facilities. Nonpoint-source discharges enter surface waters
in a diffuse manner and at intermittent intervals tied mostly to the occurrence of meteorological
events. The extent and impact of nonpoint-source pollution on coastal waters is related, at least
in part, to certain uncontrollable climatic events, as well as local geographic and geologic
conditions and may differ greatly from place to place and year to year. In some areas, the impact
of nonpoint-source discharges on coastal water quality exceeds that of point source discharges.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part 11 1-3                              August 1996







Dune Protection

       The protection of dunes is essential to a healthy coastal environment and economy.
Dunes protect inland areas from storms and flooding, slow shoreline erosion by storing sand,
serve as habitat for wildlife, and provide an aesthetic amenity to beach users and beachfront
property owners.

       Many human activities directly and indirectly destroy or damage dunes or discourage the
natural formation of new dunes. Dunes are destroyed when sand is removed for fill material or
are levelled for construction. Pedestrians and vehicles can uproot dune vegetation that anchors
the sand, making dunes vulnerable to wind and wave erosion. Development immediately
landward of dunes can destroy them by increasing traffic or by limiting the amount of sand
available for maintenance of the natural dune system.

Shoreline Access

       With population growth and an increase in tourism to the Texas coastal area, the demand
for public access to the shoreline is growing. Beach users, fishermen, pleasure boaters, and
naturalists all demand shoreline access. In more heavily populated areas, this demand for
recreational access may conflict with the demand for industrial shoreline sites and access and for
attractive shorefront sites for businesses and homes.

       The Texas Open Beaches Act ensures the public's right to use state-owned beaches on the
seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico. However, conflicts often arise, such as the one between
the public's right of access and the environmental and human safety issues imposed by vehicle
traffic on the beach.

D.     Coastal Natural Resource Areas

       To address the issues of concern, and in response to the requirements of the Coastal
Coordination Act, the Council has designated the areas listed below as coastal natural resource
areas (CNRAs) requiring special management under the Coastal Management Program. The
definitions of all CNRAs, as adopted by the Council, can be found in Appendix B - "Rules for
CMP Goals and Policies."

  * Waters of the open Gulf of Mexico are waters seaward of coastal barrier islands and bays
       and estuaries and extending to the territorial limits of the state (i.e., approximately 10.36
       miles offshore). Waters in the open Gulf of Mexico serve as habitat for numerous
       commercial and recreational fishery species.

  ï¿½ Waters under tidal influence are those waters in the state that are contained behind coastal
       barrier islands and within bays and estuaries and rivers to the inland extent of tidal
       influence. Together, waters in the open Gulf of Mexico and waters under tidal influence
       are considered "coastal waters." Waters under tidal influence provide important aquatic
       habitat, serve as prime recreation areas, and provide some domes tic water supply.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 1-4                         August 1996







              * Submerged lands are lands underlying waters under tidal influence or waters of the open
                 Gulf of Mexico that are owned by an agency or subdivision of the state, or by a person
                 other than the state. The sediments of coastal public submerged lands are habitat for a
                 diverse benthic, or bottom-dwelling, animal community.

              * Coastal wetlands are those areas having a predominance of hydric soils that are inundated
                or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
                support, and that under normal circumstances support, the growth and regeneration of
                hydrophytic vegetation, as defined in the Texas Water Code, Chapter I11, Subchapter J,
                and that lie within the Coastal Facility Designation Line and within one mile from the
                mean high tide line of tidal river and stream segments to the inland extent of tidal
                influence, except for the Trinity and Neches rivers. On the Trinity River, coastal
                wetlands are those wetlands occurring within the area located between the mean high tide
                line on the western shoreline of the river and FM Road 565 and FM Road 1409, and
                wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline
                of that portion of the river and FM Road 563. On the Neches River, coastal wetlands are
                those wetlands occurring within one mile of the mean high tide line on the western
                shoreline of the river, and wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide
                line on the eastern shoreline of that portion of the river and FM Road 105. Coastal
                wetlands provide wildlife habitat, convey and store floodwaters, trap sediment, and
                reduce water pollution.

              * Submerged aquatic vegetation is rooted aquatic vegetation growing in permanently
                inundated areas in estuarine and marine systems. Submerged aquatic vegetation provides
                valuable habitat for numerous commercial and recreational fishery organisms and for
                wildlife.

              * Tidal sand and mud flats are silt, clay, or sand substrates, unvegetated or vegetated by
                algal mats, that occur in the intertidal zone and that are regularly or intermittently
                exposed and flooded by tides. Mud flats and sand flats are the feeding grounds for
                coastal shorebirds, fish, and invertebrates.

              * Oyster reefs are natural or artificial formations in intertidal or subtidal areas that are
                composed of oyster shell, live oysters, and other organisms and that are discrete,
                contiguous, and clearly distinguishable from scattered oysters. Oyster reefs not only
                support the oyster fishery but also serve as habitat, forage ground, or hiding places for
                numerous estuarine species.

           *   Hard substrate reefs are naturally occurring hard substrate formations, such as rock
                outcrops or serpulid worm reefs (living or dead), in intertidal or subtidal areas that are
                discrete and contiguous. Hard substrate reefs provide habitat for numerous invertebrates.

           *   Coastal barriers are undeveloped areas on barrier islands and peninsulas or otherwise
                protected areas, as mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., Coastal Barrier
                Resource System Units). Coastal barriers are subject to wave, tidal, and wind energy from
0            ~    ~~~the Gulf of Mexico. Barrier islands are Galveston, Matagorda, San Jose, Mustang, and
                North and South Padre islands. Coastal barriers act as important buffers against coastal

         Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part U1 1-5                          August 1996







       storms and protect coastal natural resource areas and the mainland from erosion, flooding,
       and destruction.

  0   Coastal shore areas are all areas within I100 feet landward of the high water mark on
       submerged land. Shore areas function as buffers, protecting upland habitats from erosion
       and storm damage and adjacent marshes and waterways from water quality degradation.
       Designation of coastal shore areas as a CNRA is exclusively intended to address erosion
       impacts within coastal shore areas.

     * Gulf beaches are beaches bordering on the Gulf of Mexico that extend inland from the
       line of mean low tide to the natural line of vegetation bordering on the seaward shore of
       the Gulf of Mexico, or such larger contiguous area to which the public has acquired a
       right of use or easement to or over by prescription, dedication, or estoppel, or has retained
       a right by virtue of continuous right in the public since time immemorial. Texas beaches
       serve as important recreational areas and provide protection for landward structures
       during storms.

  *   Critical dune areas are protected sand dune complexes on the Gulf shoreline within
       1,000 feet of mean high tide. Sand dunes help prevent loss of life and property by
       absorbing the impact of storm surge and high waves and by stopping or delaying
       intrusion of water inland.

    * Special hazard areas are areas designated by the administrator of the Federal Insurance
       Administration under the National Flood Insurance Act as having special flood, mudslide
       (i.e., mud~flow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on a Flood Hazard
       Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map as Zone A, AO, Al -30, AE, A99, All, VO,
       VIl-30, VE, V, M, or E. These areas are important because they receive the brunt of
       storms, act as natural water-detention systems, and are natural filters for upland runoff.

  ï¿½   Critical erosion areas are those Gulf and bay shorelines that are undergoing erosion and
       are designated by the commissioner of the GLO under Texas Natural Resources Code,
       ï¿½33.601(b). Critical erosion areas require comprehensive management because loss of
       life and property can result if development occurs in these areas.

  *   Coastal historic areas are sites in the National Register of Historic Places on public land
       and state archaeological landmarks that are identified by the Texas Historical
       Commission as being coastal in character. Coastal historic areas provide important
       information about the coastal history and culture of the state.

 *    Coastal preserves are any lands owned by the state that are designated and used as parks,
       recreation areas, scientific areas, wildlife management areas, wildlife refuges, or historic
       sites and that are designated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as being coastal
       in character. These areas are valued for the recreational opportunities they afford and for
       the diverse habitats they comprise.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 1-6                         August 1996







         E. Uses to Be Managyed

                 In addition to designating CNRAs in need of special management, the Council has
         adopted uniform policies to better manage uses and activities that may adversely affect CNRAs.
         The following is a list of uses to be managed which are subject to TCMvP policies.

            *   Electric generating and transmission facilities include siting, construction, and
                 maintenance of electric generating facilities, electric transmission lines, and associated
                 facilities such as waste management, and activities associated with access.

            *   Oil and gas exploration and production includes geophysical operations, waste
                 management, pipeline placement, and activities associated with access to the exploration
                 or production site.

              * Residential development includes siting, construction, and maintenance of single- and
                 multi-unit dwellings; filling; canal dredging; placement of structures for shoreline access
                 and shoreline protection; and on-site sewage disposal, stormwater control, and waste
                 management for subdivisions and municipalities.

              * Commercial development includes siting, construction, and maintenance of offices,
                 warehouses, retail stores, hotels, restaurants; filling; waste management; stormwater
                 management; dredging; and the construction of structures for shoreline access and
                 shoreline protection.

            0   Industrial development includes siting, construction, and maintenance of manufacturing
                 and petrochemical plants, refineries, processing facilities, and ports; mineral mining;
                 waste management; air pollution control; filling; dredging; construction of structures for
                 shoreline access and shoreline protection; and stormwater management.

            *   Public purpose development includes siting, construction, and maintenance of public
                 structures such as hospitals, schools, municipal buildings, and public works (e.g., dams,
                reservoirs, flood control projects), and associated activities such as filling, waste
                management, dredging, and construction of structures for shoreline access and shoreline
                protection.

            0   Transportation includes siting, construction, and maintenance of roads, highways,
                 bridges, causeways, airports, railroads, and non-energy transmission lines, and associated
                 activities such as filling, dredging, draining, and stormwater management.

              * Agriculture includes farming, ranching, aquaculture, silviculture, range management, and
                 associated activities such as water impoundments and diversions.

            *   Recreational development and uses include siting, construction, and maintenance of state-
                owned fishing cabins, artificial reefs, and public facilities, and associated activities such
                as waste management, dredging, stormwater management, and construction of structures
0             ~    ~~~~for shoreline access and shoreline protection, boating (including boat ramps), fishing, and
                hunting.

         Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 1-7                          August 1996







F. Goals of the Texas Coastal Manaeement Promram

       In managing the uses and activities and their impact on CNRAs, the goals of the TCMP,
as set forth in the Council's rules, are:

   1.  to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and
       values of CNRAs;

  2. to ensure sound management of all coastal resources by allowing for compatible
       economic development and multiple human uses of the coastal zone;

  3. to minimize loss of human life and property due to the impairment and loss of protective
       features of CNRAs;

  4. to ensure and enhance planned public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone in a
       manner that is compatible with private property rights and other uses of the coastal zone;

  5. to balance the benefits from economic development and multiple human uses of the
       coastal zone, the benefits from protecting, preserving, restoring, and enhancing CNRAs,
       the benefits from minimizing loss of human life and property, and the benefits from
       public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone;

  6. to coordinate agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs by establishing
       clear, objective policies for the management of CNRAs;

  7. to make agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs efficient by
       identifying and addressing duplication and conflicts among local, state, and federal
       regulatory and other programs for the management of CNRAs.

  8.  to make agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs more effective by
       employing the most comprehensive, accurate, and reliable information and scientific data
       available and by developing, distributing for public comment, and maintaining a
       coordinated, publicly accessible geographic information system of maps of the coastal
       zone and CNRAs at the earliest possible date;

  9. to make coastal management processes visible, coherent, accessible, and accountable to
       the people of Texas by providing for public participation in the ongoing development and
       implementation of the Texas CMP; and

  10. to educate the public about the principal coastal problems of state concern and technology
       available for the protection and improved management of CNRAs.

G. A Strategv for the Texas Coast

       The TCMP lays out the state's long-term strategy for addressing the principal coastal
issues and improving management of coastal natural resource areas. It is built on a solid,
existing framework. Much of the Texas coast is owned and directly managed by units of state or

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 1-8                           August 1996







         Federal government. There are more than 557,000 acres of state or Federal parks, preserves,
         refuges, and other areas on the Texas coast that are managed for conservation or preservation
is purposes.This includes the Padre Island National Seashore, which covers more than 130,000
         acres on the world's longest barrier island. There are roughly 1,375,000 total acres of wetlands,
         seagrasses, tidal flats and other critical areas in the coastal zone. Of these, approximately 60
         percent are on publicly owned lands.

                A myriad of federal, state, and local units of government exercise regulatory authority
         over the parts of the coast that are not publicly owned. Over I181,000 acres of the Texas coastal
         zone are included in Coastal Barrier Resource Units. Under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
         development in these areas is highly limited. The bays, estuaries, shores, wetlands, and dunes of
         the Texas coast are protected by a comprehensive web of federal, state, and local authorities.
         The TCM1P is built on the most efficient use of this fr-amework.

                Throughout development of the TCMP, the general public, state and Federal agencies,
         local governments, regional agencies, and interest groups were consulted extensively. Numerous
         public hearings were held, and comments and recommendations from the public and
         governmental entities were considered carefully during development of the program. The
         unprecedented level of cooperation and input used in designing the TCMP will help ensure its
         success in preserving and protecting the Texas coast for future generations.

         H. What the TCMIP Will Accomiflish

                The TCMP is designed to enhance protection and management of CNRAs, particularly
         coastal wetlands and other critical areas, management of the beach and dune system, submerged
         lands, and coastal bays and estuaries.

                The TCMP will foster improved coordination among numerous local, state, and Federal
         government entities with jurisdiction in the coastal area through establishment of uniform state
         coastal policies. Better coordination will result not only from the establishment of the multi-
         agency Council but from the Council's exercise of consistency review authority over local, state
         and federal actions.

                Through the TCM4P grants program and the coordinated exercise of existing authorities,
        the TCMIP will enhance the management of coastal development. In particular, the program will
         help maintain and enhance public access to Gulf beaches, reduce the loss of life and property
         from coastal hazards, and improve management of major actions, which are those requiring
         preparation of an environmental impact statement.

                In addition, the TCMP will foster improved compliance with the program's policies
         through technical assistance to permit applicants by the Permitting Assistance Group (PAG).
         The PAG will work with applicants, particularly individuals and small businesses, early in the
         permitting process to meet the requirements of the TCM1P. Compliance with coastal policies
         should be enhanced as a result of the requirement that the Council prepare an annual program
        report summarizing efforts to implement the program by state agencies and political
         subdivisions.


         Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 1-9                         August 1996







        The TCM1P also contains provisions to simplify permitting processes. Through the
TCMP, joint public notices for state and federal wetlands permits are expected to be developed.
In addition, the PAG will, among other things, provide a simple explanation of all permit
requirements and coordinate the agency permitting schedules when many agencies are required
to approve or authorize the same project.

       Finally, through the exercise of federal consistency review authority, the TCMP will
ensure that federal agencies adhere to the State of Texas's goals and policies for management of
its coastal resources. In Particular, the TCMP is designed to promote the beneficial use of
dredged material from commercially navigable waterways.

       Overall, the TCM1P is a cooperative program to improve management of the state's
valuable coastal resources by reducing fragmentation, conflict and overlap among government
entities. The specific benefits to the state and citizens of Texas from Federal approval of the
TCM1P are discussed in Part I and Part III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.




































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part if 1-10                          August 1996







                                      CHAPTER TWO.
                 THE TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY

A. Introduction

       The boundaries of the area subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program were
delineated in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(ï¿½306(d)(2)(A)), the Federal program development and approval regulations (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½923.31-
34), and the Texas Coastal Coordination Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.052).

       The CZMA requires that the state's coastal zone boundary include four elements: an
inland boundary, a seaward boundary, interstate boundaries, and federal lands excluded from the
boundary.

       The federal regulations specify that the inland boundary must encompass "those areas the
management of which is necessary to control uses which have direct and significant impacts on
coastal waters" (15 CFR ï¿½923.31(a)(1)). A state's inland boundary must also include special
management areas, waters under saline influence, salt marshes and wetlands, beaches,
transitional and intertidal areas, and islands. Federal regulations stipulate that the boundary must
be drawn clearly and precisely so that property owners, or anyone engaging in activities subject
to the program, can easily determine whether they are within the management area (15 CFR
ï¿½923.31).

       The coastal zone boundary encompasses the area within Texas lying generally seaward of
the coastal facility designation line, which is the line adopted under the Oil Spill Prevention and
Response Act of 1991 to describe areas where oil spills are likely to enter tidal waters. It also
includes certain wetlands landward of the coastal facility designation line. These coastal wetland
areas generally extend inland one mile from the shoreline along the extreme inland reach of
certain tidal rivers and streams.

       The boundary of the Texas coastal zone includes all the coastal natural resource areas
(CNRAs) identified in Chapter Four of this document and defined in 31 TAC ï¿½501.3(b) and the
Coastal Coordination Act.

       There is a distinction between the coastal zone as defined by the boundary and the
CNRAs. All CNRAs are located within the coastal zone boundary, but not all areas within the
boundary are considered CNRAs.

B. General Descrintion of the Coastal Zone Boundary

       The Coastal Management Program boundary (fig. 1) delineates the coastal zone. Generally,
the boundary encompasses the area within Texas lying seaward of the coastal facility designation
line. It also includes coastal wetlands landward of the coastal facility designation line. The boundary
includes areas within the following Texas counties: Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces,
San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio, Calhoun, Victoria, Jackson, Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston, Harris,
Chambers, Liberty, Jefferson, and Orange. The seaward reach of the boundary extends into the Gulf


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 2-1                        August 1996







of Mexico to the limit of state title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (43 United States
Code ï¿½ 1301 et seq.), or three marine leagues.

C.     Legal Descrintion of the Coastal Zone Boundary

       The boundary is more particularly described in terms of (1) the inland boundary, (2) the
seaward boundary, (3) the boundary with the State of Louisiana, (4) the boundary with the Republic
of Mexico, and (5) the excluded federal lands.

  1. The Inland Boundarv

       The inland boundary encompasses the following areas.

       (a) Roadway portion of boundary. The coastal facility designation line begins at the
       International Toll Bridge in Brownsville, thence northward along U.S. Highway 77 to the
       junction of Paredes Lines Road (FM Road 1847) in Brownsville, thence northward along FM
       Road 1847 to the junction of FM Road 106 east of Rio Hondo, thence westward along FM
       Road 106 to the junction of FM Road 508 to the junction of FM Road 1420, thence
       northward along FM Road 1420 to the junction of State Highway 186 east of Raymondville,
       thence westward along State Highway 186 to the junction of U.S. Highway 77 near
       Raymondville, thence northward along U.S. Highway 77 to the junction of FM Road 774 in
       Refugio, thence eastward along FM Road 774 to the junction of State Highway 35 south of
       Tivoli, thence northward along State Highway 35 to the junction of State Highway 185
       between Bloomington and Seadrift, thence northwestward along State Highway 185 to the
      junction of FM Road 616 in Bloomington, thence northeastward along FM Road 616 to the
      junction of State Highway 35 east of Blessing, thence southward along State Highway 35 to
       the junction of FM Road 521 north of Palacios, thence northeastward along FM Road 521
       to the junction of State Highway 36 south of Brazoria, thence northward along State
       Highway 36 to the junction of State Highway 332 in Brazoria, thence eastward along State
       Highway 332 to the junction of FM Road 2004 to the junction of Interstate Highway 45
       between Dickinson and La Marque, thence northwestward along Interstate Highway 45 to
       the junction of Interstate Highway 610 in Houston, thence east and northward along
       Interstate Highway 610 to the junction of Interstate Highway 10 in Houston, thence eastward
       along Interstate Highway 10 to the Louisiana State line.

       (b) Tidal portion of boundary. The boundary runs at a distance of 100 yards inland of the
       mean high tide line along each of the following tidal river and stream segments from the
       point where they intersect the roadway boundary:

              (1) on the Arroyo Colorado, to a point 100 meters (110) yards downstream of
              Cemetery Road south of Port Harlingen in Cameron County.

              (2) on the Nueces River, to Calallen Dam 1.7 kilometers (1.1 miles) upstream of U.S.
              Highway 77 in Nueces/San Patricio County.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 2-2                      August 1996








                                                        FIGURE I



*                        ~~~Texas Coastal Management Program


                         -  V      & ~~~~~~~~~~~~T~~~~-SAN'JACINTO    "-r
                                                                 MflNTCOMERY            HA RINt~
                                         ,jrWASHINGTON

      HAYk                    -'M                                                          1"         'RN
                                 FAYETTE   )W~E
   )hKAIY )    i-.    ALDWEILL               AUSTIN- .,jv A       HARRIS




              -'9ON7AL-ESI



              A> ' OE'W~~~ITT'


        KARNES  ,,     t\VCOI




            -1>

             SAWTRCIE



           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t







                                                             Coastal Zone Boundary
                                                             Coastal Wetlands Only
LOOKS                                                                                 TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE











                                                                                                GARRY MAURO









                                                         II 2-3







              (3) on the Guadalupe River, to the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Salt Water
              Barrier 0.7 kilometers (0.4 miles) downstream of the confluence of the San Antonio
              River in Calhoun/Refugio County.

              (4) on the Lavaca River, to a point 8.6 kilometers (5.3 miles) downstream of U.S.
              Highway 59 in Jackson County.

              (5) on the Navidad River, to Palmetto Bend Dam in Jackson County.

              (6) on Tres Palacios Creek, to a point 0.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) upstream of the
              confluence of Wilson Creek in Matagorda County.

              (7) on the Colorado River, to a point 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) downstream of the
              Missouri-Pacific Railroad in Matagorda County.

              (8) on the San Bernard River, to a point 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) upstream of State
              Highway 35 in Brazoria County.

              (9) on Chocolate Bayou, to a point 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) downstream of State
              Highway 35 in Brazoria County.

              (10) on Clear Creek, to a point 100 meters (110 yards) upstream of FM Road 528 in
              Galveston/Harris County.

              (11) on Buffalo Bayou, to a point 400 meters (440 yards) upstream of Shepherd
              Drive in Harris County.

              (12) on the San Jacinto River, to Lake Houston Dam in Harris County.

              (13) on Cedar Bayou, to a point 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) upstream of Interstate
              Highway 10 in Chambers/Harris County.

              (14) on the Trinity River, to a point 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) downstream of U.S.
              Highway 90 in Liberty County.

              (15) on the Neches River, to a point 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles) upstream of
              Interstate Highway 10 in Orange County.

              (16) on the Sabine River, to Morgan Bluff in Orange County.

       (c) Wetlands portion of boundary. Except for the part of the boundary adjacent to the
       Trinity and Neches rivers, the boundary includes wetlands lying within one mile inland of
       the mean high tide line of the tidal river and stream segments identified in subparagraph (B).

              (1) adjacent to the Trinity River, the boundary includes wetlands within the area
              located between the mean high tide line on the western shoreline of the river and FM
              Road 565 and FM Road 1409, and wetlands within the area located between the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 2-4                      August 1996







               mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline of that portion of the river and FM Road
               563.

               (2) adjacent to the Neches River, the boundary includes wetlands within one mile of
               the mean high tide line on the western shoreline of the river, and wetlands within the
               area located between the mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline of that portion
               of the river and FM Road 105.

  2. The Seaward Boundarv

       The seaward reach of the boundary extends into the Gulf of Mexico to the limit of state title
and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. ï¿½1301 et seq.), three marine leagues
(10.36 miles) from the state's Gulf shoreline.

  3. The Boundary with the State of Louisiana

       The boundary with the State of Louisiana begins in Orange County at Morgan Bluff, the
northernmost extent of tidal influence, along the adjudicated boundary between the State of Texas
and the State of Louisiana, as established by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Louisiana,
410 U.S. 702 (1973); thence it continues in a southerly direction along the adjudicated boundary out
into the Gulf of Mexico until it intersects the seaward boundary. Determination of the interstate
boundary was made after consultation with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, as
required by the federal regulations.

  4. The Boundarv with the Retmblic of Mexico

       The boundary with the Republic of Mexico begins at a point three marine leagues into the
Gulf of Mexico where the line marking the seaward limit of Texas title and ownership under the
Submerged Lands Act (43 United States Code ï¿½ 1301 et seq.) intersects the international boundary
between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, as established pursuant to the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo (February 2, 1848) between the United States and the Republic of Mexico;
thence it continues in a westerly direction along the international border with the Republic of Mexico
until it meets the International Toll Bridge in Brownsville (that point on the border marking the
westernmost intersection of Cameron County).

  5. Excluded Federal Lands

       The excluded Federal lands are those lands owned, leased, or held in trust by the federal
government or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the Federal
government, its officers, or its agents. Examples are military bases, national seashore lands, national
wildlife refuge lands, National Guard installations, and lands occupied by federal facilities.
Table 1 lists those major federal lands excluded from the coastal zone. While activities on excluded
federal lands are not required to comply with the TCMP goals and policies, an activity that has
spillover effects on CNRAs is subject to the federal consistency requirement (see Chapter Five).




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 2-5                       August 1996









                                                      Table 1



     EXCLUDED FEDERAL LANDS IN THE TEXAS COASTAL ZONE


  SITE                                    AGENCY                                    COUNTY

  Brazoria NWR                            USFWS                                     Brazoria

  San Bernard NWR                         USFWS                                    Brazoria/Matagorda

  Matagorda Island NWR                    USFWS                                     Calhoun/Aransas

  Aransas NWR                             USFWS                                     Calhoun/Aransas

  Anahuac NWR                             USFWS                                     Chambers

  Moody NWR                               USFWS                                     Chambers

  Laguna Atascosa NWR                     USFWS                                     Cameron

  McFaddin NWR                            USFWS                                     Jefferson

  Texas Point NWR                         USFWS                                     Jefferson

  Big Boggy NWR                           USFWS                                     Matagorda

  Lower Rio Grande NWR                    USFWS                                     Willacy/Cameron

  Johnson Space Center                    NASA                                      Harris

  Naval Station Ingleside (and            DOD                                       San Patricio/Nueces
  associated training areas)

  Naval Air Station Corpus Christi        DOD                                       Nueces
  (and associated training areas)

  Naval Air Station Kingsville (and        DOD                                      Kleberg
  associated training areas)

  Padre Island NS                         NPS                                       Kleberg/Kenedy/
                                                                               Willacy


NWR = National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS =   United States Fish and Wildlife Service
NS   =  National Seashore
NPS  =  National Park Service
DOD  =   Department of Defense


NOTE: Not included in this table, but likewise excluded from the coastal zone, are individual buildings and sites such as post
offices and small National Guard installations.









Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS             Part II 2-6                                        August 1996







D.     Delineation of the Coastal Management Boundarv

       At the request of the Executive Committee of the Coastal Coordination Council (EC), an
interagency work group of biologists, geologists, hydrologists, and attorneys representing member
agencies of the State Agency Task Force (SATF) was formed to research and recommend boundary
options within a 33-county planning area. The work group evaluated the planning area to determine
the locations of CNRAs and the types and locations of activities having adverse effects on CNR.As.
Existing maps, studies, and agency experts on natural resources were consulted during the analysis.

       The work group identified three options: (1) a boundary encompassing all counties with
tidewater shorelines (the first tier of counties bordering on the Gulf of Mexico), (2) a boundary
encompassing all first- and second-tier counties, and (3) a boundary encompassing all counties
within the coastal watersheds.

       At the instruction of the SATF and the EC, the work group narrowed its focus to an inland
boundary that included all first-tier counties plus four second-tier counties: Hidalgo, Fort Bend,
Jasper, and Newton. All other second-tier counties were determined not to contain activities having
adverse effects on CNRAs. The GLO staff also consulted with the State of Louisiana on the
interstate boundary. No points of conflict were identified.

       The EC reviewed the information on these counties in May 1993 and recommended to the
Council that the inland boundary be drawn to include the first tier of counties plus Hidalgo and Fort
Bend counties. In June 1993, the Council reviewed the findings and recommendations of the EC
and published the recommended boundary in the Texas Register as a proposed rule.

       On the basis of public comment, the Council reexamined the proposed boundary in
September 1993 and concluded that the majority of activities occurring in Fort Bend and Hidalgo
counties did not directly and significantly impact CNRAs. The Council adopted an inland boundary
encompassing only the 19 first-tier counties which have tidewater influence, and the established
seaward, interstate, and international boundaries as the TCMP boundary.

       The Council received public comment on the proposed TCMP goals and policies between
March I15 and September 6, 1994. On the basis of public comment, the Council reexamined the
adopted boundary in September 1994. It concluded that the majority of activities occurring in
Liberty County did not directly and significantly impact CNRAs and proposed amending the adopted
boundary to exclude Liberty County. In addition, the Council directed that a work group be formed
to reevaluate the boundary in light of the adopted goals and policies of the TCMIP and to determine
if any further modification of the boundary was necessary.

       A boundary work group consisting of representatives of Council members, interested local
governments, and coastal legislators met in January, February, and March 1995. W~hile the work
group was developing and considering options, the Texas Legislature established by statute that the
coastal boundary be the coastal facility designation line and include coastal wetlands generally
within one mile along tidal segments of rivers and streams.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 2-7                        August 1996







                                    CHAPTER THREE.
             ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

A.     Implementation

       Collectively, state agencies, cities, and counties have been managing Texas' coastal
resources for quite some time. The laws that authorize them to manage the coast have been
enacted piecemeal over the last several decades. These agencies and subdivisions of the state
will implement the TCMP through their ongoing exercise of these existing authorities.

       The TCMP is based on the Coastal Coordination Act, which was first enacted in 1991
and subsequently amended in 1995. The TCMP is designed to improve management of coastal
natural resources by the networked agencies and subdivisions. The Act requires the networked
agencies and subdivisions to exercise their existing legal authorities in a manner consistent with
a uniform set of goals and policies.

       The Coastal Coordination Council (Council) is responsible for achieving the greater
efficiency and effectiveness mandated by the Coastal Coordination Act. Therefore, the Council
sets the TCMP goals and policies and ensures that agencies' and subdivisions' actions are
consistent with them.

       In addition to the networked agencies and subdivisions and the Council, there are several
committees that will help implement the TCMP. Some of these were created during program
development and will be retained during program implementation. They are designed to improve
interagency coordination and dissemination of program information and to help mediate
disputes. Other coordinating mechanisms being developed or already in existence will also be
employed. The organizational structure of the TCMP will remain flexible, especially during the
first few years of program implementation, to ensure that the state most effectively utilizes staff
and supporting resources.

1. Coastal Coordination Council

       The Council's primary responsibilities for program implementation are set forth in the
Coastal Coordination Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.201 et seq.). These include:

   * continually reviewing the principal coastal problems of state concern;

   *  reviewing the effectiveness of the TCMP and issuing an annual report;

   ï¿½  promulgating rules adopting the goals and policies of the TCMP;

   *  periodically submitting recommendations to an agency or subdivision designed to
       encourage the agency or subdivision to carry out its functions in a manner consistent with
       the goals and policies of the TCMP;




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 3-1                           August 1996







    *  reviewing agency rulemaking actions that an agency submits to the Council for
       certification for consistency with the TCMP, and either certifying the actions as
       consistent or denying certification and reporting back to the agency with is
       recommendations for correcting any deficiencies;

    *  issuing a Notice of Program Deficiency to any agency that either implements or amends
       its certified rules in a manner inconsistent with the TCMP, and in the case of an agency
       that does not correct the deficiency, revoking certification of those rules;

   ï¿½ reviewing for consistency any proposed federal action subject to the TCMP that three
       regular members of the Council submit to the Council for review, including receiving the
       oral or written testimony of any person regarding the matter;

   ï¿½ reviewing for consistency any proposed state agency or subdivision action subject to the
       TCMP that three regular members of the Council submit to the Council for review,
       including receiving the oral or written testimony of any person regarding the matter;

   *  in the case of a state agency or subdivision action that the Council finds inconsistent,
       protesting the action, reporting the findings and recommendations to the agency or
       subdivision and, if the agency or subdivision does not resolve the inconsistency, referring
       the matter to the attorney general for issuance of an opinion and possibly a lawsuit, and
       either proceeding with litigation or, if possible, entering into settlement agreements with
       the agency or subdivision; and

     *reporting to the Texas Legislature on recommended statutory changes and agencies' and
       subdivisions' compliance with the TCMP.

       In addition, the Council will annually approve the funding priorities and award criteria for
distributing the federal coastal funds that Texas will receive after federal approval of the TCMP.
The Council will award the individual grants using those priorities and criteria.

2. Implementation Mechanisms

       The Council will use the mechanisms described below to facilitate implementation of the
TCMP, provide opportunity for public and agency input, and ensure compliance with the TCMP
goals and policies.

 a. Executive Committee of the Council

       The Executive Committee of the Council (the EC), composed of management-level
representatives of the Council members, will coordinate responses to Council inquiries and
implementation of Council directives. The EC will also review other matters that may be the
subject of future Council deliberation. The EC will generally meet in advance of Council
meetings to refine these issues and recommend Council action on them.


       The EC will also issue preliminary findings for proposed agency or subdivision actions.
Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 3-2                         August 1996







If the EC issues a preliminary finding of consistency with the goals and policies of the TCMP,
the Council may review the proposed action only if the final agency or subdivision action is
substantially different than it was when presented to the EC for preliminary review.

  b. Permittin, Assistance Grout)

       The Coastal Coordination Act establishes a Permitting Assistance Group (PAG). The
PAG is composed of a representative of each Council member and is chaired by the
representative of the Council chair. The PAG will: (1) support the EC in rendering preliminary
consistency review decisions; and (2) provide preapplication assistance for individuals and small
business.

       Initiated at the request of a state agency or applicant, preliminary review is intended to
provide direct Council input into the agency or local government permitting process to assist in
the identification and resolution of any consistency issues before an action is proposed.

       During preliminary review, the PAG will identify all consistency issues, make
recommendations for their resolution, and present the proposed action to the EC for a
preliminary consistency finding.

       The PAG will also help facilitate preapplication assistance upon request to any individual
or small business owner filing an application for an agency or subdivision permit or other action
subject to the TCMP. This assistance will identify all necessary permits, simply explain all
permitting requirements, and help the applicant complete the application.

       Finally, the PAG, under EC guidance, will coordinate agencies' consistency
determinations upon request where multiple authorizations or permits are required for a single
project.

 c. Interaeencv Coordination Grouns

       To assist the Council in evaluating the consistency of federal development projects with
the TCMP policies, the TCMP rules allow a federal agency to form an ad hoc Interagency
Coordination Group (ICG). At a minimum, each ICG will include, as voting members,
representatives of the local project sponsor, federal and state natural resource and regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction over the project, and three Council members or their representatives.
The ICG, with input from the Council, will advise the federal agency on the consistency of the
project with the TCMP goals and policies. If a majority of the Council members on the ICG
support the group's assessment of the project's consistency, the ICG will develop a formal
consistency determination for the project. If the federal agency submits a consistency
determination to the Council incorporating the ICG's recommendations and/or conditions for
consistency with the TCMP, the Council will issue a general consistency agreement for the
project.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part H 3-3                            August 1996







  d. Maintenance Dredaina Memorandum of Amreement

       Because of the extensive federal maintenance dredging activities within the coastal I
boundary, the Council executed a memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) in October 1994. The MOA establishes a multi-year period for consistency
review of ongoing federal maintenance dredging projects within the TCMP boundary. Through
the MOA, a schedule for review of particular projects was established. Without the MOA, the
Corps would have to prepare and submit consistency determinations on all its projects within 120
days of federal approval of the TCMP, and the state would have to review and respond to the
consistency determination within 60 days (15 CFR Part 930). The time lines stipulated in the
MOA allow the state and Corps to conduct more complete and thorough reviews of federal
maintenance dredging projects.

       For each maintenance dredging project (e.g., Gulf Intracoastal Waterway), the Corps will
produce a long-term maintenance dredging plan that is consistent with the TCMP. If the state
disagrees with the Corps consistency determination for a maintenance dredging plan, the Corps
and the state will negotiate directly or enter into some form of alternative dispute resolution. The
product will be a negotiated consistency determination for the project's maintenance dredging
plan. The plan can include a schedule for any necessary changes in current maintenance dredging
practices for the project, thus providing flexibility. The process includes opportunities for ports
and other local sponsors of navigation projects to participate in reviews of their projects.

 e. Trans-Texas Water Procram Policy Management Committee

       The Council will utilize the existing Trans-Texas Water Program Policy Management
Committee (PMC) to ensure that this water development project is consistent with the TCMP.
The PMC is a multiagency body with responsibility for the overall planning of the Trans-Texas
Water Program. It currently includes three individual Council members (TWDB, TNRCC, and
TPWD) and one representative of the Council as a whole (GLO) who are responsible for
ensuring full application of the TCMP goals and policies in the planning of the Trans-Texas
project.

       If the Council, acting through its representatives on the PMC, finds the Trans-Texas
Water Program and any water rights actions ([EX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(0(8)-
(10)) to be taken pursuant to the program consistent with the TCMP goals and policies, further
Council review of the proposed actions will be unnecessary. This review of proposed actions for
consistency at the earliest planning stage will avoid last-minute delays due to consistency
concerns.

 f. Advisorv Committee

       The Council will establish an advisory committee to assist in implementation of the
TCMP and to provide a formal mechanism for ongoing public input into the program. Four or
five regional subcommittees may be established to represent the citizens, local governments, and
other interested parties in each coastal region. The committee will meet at least annually and
will report regularly to the Council. By law, advisory committee members may only include
persons with expertise in coastal matters and persons who live in the coastal area.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 3-4                         August 1996







       To facilitate public participation in the TCMP, the regional subcommittees would be
responsible for identifying coastal issues of concern in each region, hosting regular local
meetings in each region, and disseminating program information to the public.

 g. Corps of Engineers Preatrplication Process

       State and federal regulatory and natural resource agencies meet biweekly with the
Galveston District Corps of Engineers to review applications for Corps permits (e.g., ï¿½404
permits) received during the previous two weeks. The agencies normally participating in this
process are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, and the GLO. The biweekly meetings give participating
agencies an opportunity to comment on the applications and identify any preliminary concerns.
Project sponsors may present their proposed projects to the interagency group for comment even
before applying for a Corps permit. The Council plans to use this process to identify potential
consistency issues with permits or proposed projects.

3. Texas General Land Office - Lead State Coastal Aencv

       The federal regulations (15 CFR ï¿½923.48(b)) require the state's designated lead agency to
have the fiscal and legal capability to: (1) accept and administer grant funds; (2) make contracts
or other arrangements (such as pass-through grants) with eligible agencies and local governments
and other eligible entities for the purpose of carrying out specific management tasks; and (3)
account for a recipient's expenditure of implementation funds. The designated lead agency must
have the administrative capability to: (1) monitor and evaluate the management of the state's
coastal resources by the various agencies and/or local governments with specified responsibilities
under the state's coastal management program, irrespective of whether such entities receive ï¿½306
funds; (2) make periodic reports to OCRM, the governor, or the state legislature, as appropriate,
regarding the performance of all agencies involved in the program; and (3) present evidence of
adherence to the management program or justification for deviation as part of the review of state
performance required by ï¿½312 of the CZMA.

       The Texas Legislature designated the GLO both as the lead agency to coordinate the
development of the TCMP, in cooperation with other state agencies having responsibilities
relating to coastal matters (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.052), and as the staff of the
Coastal Coordination Council (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.204). Governor George W.
Bush designated the GLO as the lead agency for administration of grants under the CZMA in his
letter of October 19, 1995, to the Under Secretary of Commerce. As such, the GLO will manage
the daily operations of the program. Primary responsibility for management of the TCMP will
reside within the GLO Coastal Division.

       Responsibilities of the Coastal Division include: (1) providing staff support to the
Council (this includes the duties of the secretary to the Council), the Executive Committee, and
the advisory committee; (2) coordinating the PAG's activities and serving on the various other
committees, panels, and groups implementing the TCMP; (3) administering CZMA funds and
pass-through grants and contracts; (4) coordinating and preparing the necessary documentation
for program evaluation reviews under CZMA ï¿½312; (5) coordinating state and federal

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 3-5                         August 1996







consistency reviews; (6) providing technical and policy assistance to state and local entities with
responsibilities for implementing the TCMP; (7) coordinating ongoing public participation and
education programs; (8) coordinating implementation of the erosion response plan, energy
facility siting plan, and other special planning elements by the appropriate agencies; (9)
providing technical and policy assistance and coordinating and compiling agencies' quarterly
reports; and (10) preparing annual reports for the Texas Legislature.

Administrative Cavacitv for Procram Imnlementation

       The GLO has the fiscal and legal capability to accept and administer grant funds. The
agency's organizational structure includes a large program area devoted to fiscal affairs which
comprises a purchasing division, a budget office, and an office of alternative funding. This area
is experienced in dealing with purchasing (including purchases from minority and women's
business enterprises), contracts, and pass-through grants. The GLO's Legal Services program
area employs attorneys expert in contracts and fiscal affairs. The Coastal Division employs a
grant specialist who oversees the day-to-day management of the division's grants, including
reporting and billing.

       The GLO's administrative capability to oversee and administer the TCMP also meets
federal requirements. Texas Natural Resources Code ï¿½ï¿½33.054 and 33.204 authorize: (1) the
commissioner of the GLO to review the management program periodically and, with concurrence
of the Council, to amend it as new information or changed conditions may warrant; (2) the GLO
to assist the Council in carrying out its duties; and (3) the GLO to draft, for Council approval,
annual reports to be submitted to the legislature on a biannual basis analyzing the effectiveness
of the TCMP and making recommendations for improving the TCMP.

       The Coastal Division serves as the coastal policy, technical, and administrative staff to
the chairman of the Council (commissioner of the GLO), as well as to the Council. The Coastal
Division currently has 17 policy, technical, and administrative staff members with expertise in
coordinating intergovernmental management programs, grant and contract management, program
administration, public participation, land use planning, geographic information systems, wetlands
management, coastal physical processes, navigation planning, living resources management,
natural resource damage assessment, and water quality. Other divisions within the GLO have
expertise in asset management, including surveying, land sales and leasing, energy resources
management, oil spill prevention and response, and environmental law.

4. Networked State Aaencies and Subdivisions Resnonsible for Imnlementation

       The primary responsibility of the state agencies and subdivisions that are subject to the
provisions of the TCMP is to ensure that proposed actions listed in 31 TAC Chapter 505 that
may adversely affect coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs) are consistent with the goals and
policies of the TCMP. The agencies and subdivisions will do this through the exercise of their
statutory authorities. Chapter Four summarizes the scope of each agency's regulatory authority
by providing the following information: a description of each listed action; the land and water
uses that are managed under each listed action; the agency's authority to issue variances;
monitoring and enforcement requirements; and the agency's authority to regulate or condition the
action to satisfy TCMP policies.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 3-6                          August 1996








          B. Cominijance Monitoring

           1. Coastal Coordination Council

                  It is a responsibility of the Council to monitor the actions of the state and federal agencies
          and state subdivisions subject to the TCMP to ensure their continued compliance with the TCMP
          goals and policies. The Council's compliance monitoring will include monitoring decisions
          below state consistency review thresholds and monitoring agency enforcement of authorities.
          The Council will monitor all actions subject to consistency review, including authorizations,
          development projects, and rule changes.

           Monitoring Mechanisms and Procedures

                  The agencies undertaking or authorizing actions subject to the TCMiP will be responsible
          for monitoring their permits, licenses, development projects, etc. Specific descriptions of line
          agencies' statutory authority to monitor permits and licenses they issue or their development
          projects are included later in this chapter and in Chapter Four.

                  The Coastal Coordination Act requires the GLO, in coordination with the networked
          agencies and subdivisions, to prepare an annual report on the effectiveness of the TCMP. The
          Council approves the final report. The Council will monitor long-term compliance with the
          TCMP goals and policies through the annual report. The Council will use the annual report to
          monitor the consistency of agency and subdivision actions taken over the previous year to
          determine the effectiveness of the goals and policies and consistency review processes. Any
          recommendations made by the Council under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.207(1) to an
          agency or subdivision will also be included in the report to encourage agencies or subdivisions to
          carry out their functions in compliance with the goals and policies. On or before January I15 of
          each odd-numbered year the GLO will send the previous two annual reports to the state
          legislature.

                  The report will, in part, be a compilation of the reports agencies must submit quarterly to
          the Council under ï¿½505.30(e) of the Council's rules. These reports will provide the information
          necessary for the Council to evaluate the line agencies' actions. The report will also include
          information and recommendations from the advisory committee and from public comment on the
          report.

                  The report will include information such as summaries of the results of the preliminary
          review and permitting processes, the number of actions subject to the TCMP taken by agencies
          (including rulemaking actions), the number of rulemaking actions submitted to the Council for
          certification, the number of rulemaking actions denied certification by the Council, any Notice of
          Program Deficiency issued by the Council and the agency's corrective response to the notice, the
          number of actions found by an agency to have no direct and significant adverse effect on
          CNRAs, the number of actions in which consistency was at issue, the number of actions
          qualifying for review by the Council, the number of actions referred to the Council, the number
S       ~ ~~of actions protested by the Council and the outcome, and information on agency monitoring,
          compliance, and enforcement measures, such as the extent of any followup monitoring of

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 3-7                         August 1996







authorized activities, the number of cases where the agency determined there was
noncompliance, the number and type of enforcement actions and their outcome, etc.

       The annual report will also provide status and trend reviews of CNRAs, any updates of
CNRA inventories, an attempt to analyze cumulative and secondary effects of activities on
CNRAs, summarize new research relevant to the TCMP, describe issues raised and
recommendations made by the advisory committee, summarize issues raised by the public,
recommend actions the Council may take to improve the TCMP, and recommend statutory
changes needed to make more effective and efficient use of public funds and provide for more
effective and efficient management of CNRAs, including recommendations on methods to
simplify government procedures (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.207(2)).

       In addition to its direct monitoring, the Council will coordinate with the monitoring
programs of the Galveston Bay Estuary Program (GBEP), formerly the Galveston Bay National
Estuary Program, and the Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program (CCBNEP). Linking
the monitoring programs of the TCMP and these programs is important because the majority of
activities along the Texas coast occur in the heavily industrialized and densely populated
counties surrounding Galveston and Corpus Christi bays. The Council's member agencies are
participating in the CCBNEP and will work to ensure that a sound and workable monitoring
program is developed for the CCBNEP study area.

       The GBEP's Galveston Bay Plan includes a chapter on the Galveston Bay regional
monitoring program. While this program concentrates on monitoring changes in the health of the
bay ecosystem (e.g., overall pollutant loadings to the bay, bay ambient conditions, overall
ecological productivity and diversity of the bay), the health of the bay will be a good indicator of
the general success of the TCMP goals and policies since the goals and policies target avoidance
and minimization of adverse effects on CNRAs.

       The Council will also improve its compliance monitoring with the aid of the public. The
advisory committee may also help the council identify compliance problems. The committee
will be valuable in this way because its members live and work on the coast and have a greater
knowledge of daily activities.

2. Texas General Land Office

       The monitoring responsibilities of the GLO, as the agency administering the TCMP,
primarily include tasks that support the Council's monitoring efforts. The GLO's role is that of
reporter, ensuring that all monitoring information received by the Council is recorded, analyzed,
and presented to the appropriate parties. GLO staff will also coordinate the state and federal
consistency review processes and maintain and update the CNRA inventory in the Geographic
Information System (GIS).

 a. Monitoring Mechanisms and Procedures

       The GLO will compile agencies' quarterly reports, draft the annual report, and submit it
to the Council for approval. GLO staff will also coordinate preliminary reviews, permitting
assistance, and state and federal consistency reviews.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 3-8                         August 1996







  b. Administrative Monitorinc Canacitv

       The GLO has 17 staff members in the Coastal Division with expertise in coastal issues.
Two staff members work on the development and upkeep of the TCMP GIS. Eight Coastal
Division staff members with expertise in coastal policy and technical issues will draft the annual
reports and provide the initial analysis needed for the Council to review and approve them.

3. Networked State Agencies and Subdivisions Resnonsible for Monitoring

       The networked state agencies will retain the responsibility for monitoring permitted or
authorized actions for compliance with permit conditions and with the goals and policies of the
TCMP. The agencies will continue to use mechanisms such as site visits, self-reporting, citizen
complaints, and citizen monitoring in their compliance monitoring programs. Agencies' monitoring
authorities are included in the information provided in Chapter Four.

C.     Enforcement

       The Coastal Coordination Act, the TCMP rules, the Texas Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), and the enabling statutes of the networked agencies establish three enforcement techniques.

  (1) The networked agencies and subdivisions can take administrative action against private
       parties to enforce the existing authorities that are linked together into the TCMP. For
       example, permit conditions necessary to achieve TCMP consistency can be enforced through
       all means available to networked agencies. These existing enforcement powers typically
       include assessment of administrative penalties and fines or revocation of the agency
       authorization or approval. If administrative action does not achieve compliance, the agency
       or subdivision can pursue civil or criminal litigation through referral of the matter to the
       attorney general.

  (2) The Council can administratively review agency and subdivision consistency determinations.
       If the Council disagrees with an agency's or subdivision's determination and the agency or
       subdivision does not correct the problem, the Council can pursue litigation through referral
       of the matter to the attorney general.

  (3) Third parties (citizens, agencies, or local governments) can administratively challenge an
       agency consistency determination. For example, a party can challenge agency consistency
       determinations in a contested case hearing before an agency. Third parties can also seek
       judicial review of agency/subdivision consistency determinations, as provided by law.

1. Coastal Coordination Council

       The Council is responsible for enforcing compliance with the Coastal Coordination Act. The
Act authorizes the Council to enforce the statute against state agencies and political subdivisions,
which are the entities whose actions are governed by the statute.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 3-9                           August 1996







Enforcement Mechanisms and Procedures

       The Coastal Coordination Act provides the statutory basis for the Council's enforcement of0
the TCMP goals and policies. As defined in the TCMP rules and articulated in ï¿½33.206(b) of the
Texas Natural Resources Code, compliance with the TCMP goals and policies is mandatory for
actions subject to the program. If the Council finds that a proposed action is inconsistent with the
TCMP goals and policies, it must protest the proposed action to the agency or subdivision. When
protesting a proposed action, the Council must issue a report of findings to the agency or subdivision
authorizing the action. If the agency or subdivision does not modify the proposed action to make
it consistent with the TCMP, the Council must refer the matter to the attorney general for issuance
of an opinion and possibly litigation. Even after suit is filed, the Council may still enter into a
settlement agreement with the agency or subdivision with regard to the proposed action. If a suit has
been filed by the attorney general, the attorney general must be a party to the settlement.

2. Attorney General

       The attorney general has the authority, under the Coastal Coordination Act and APA, to
enforce the decisions of the Council against agencies and subdivisions. The attorney general must
file suit in a district court of Travis County if the attorney general finds that the proposed action is
inconsistent and the agency or subdivision fails to implement the Council's recommendations. In
determining whether to sue, the attorney general must consider the Council's findings and
recommendations and the agency's response to the recommendations.

       The attorney general's obligation to undertake enforcement action is clear and mandatory.
The language of the Coastal Coordination Act requires the attorney general to seek enforcement
through the courts unless a settlement agreement is reached.

3. Texas General Land Office

       As the lead entity for administering the TCMP, the GLO has a role supporting the Council
but no direct responsibility for enforcing the Coastal Coordination Act. The GLO will act as
administrative, technical, and legal support for the Council when the Council refers, reviews,
protests, or reports to a state agency or subdivision on a proposed action, when it requests an opinion
from the attorney general, or when it enters into negotiations with the agency or subdivision. The
GLO will also provide the attorney generalts office with any information needed to issue an opinion
or bring suit.

4. Networked State Agencies and Subdivisions Resnonsible for Enforcement

       The networked state agencies and subdivisions with jurisdiction over a proposed action are
responsible for enforcing the provisions of the TCMP. State agencies have long had the authority
to ask the attorney general to initiate enforcement action against a private party for violation of the
terms or conditions of a permit. All agencies are authorized to enforce the permits or other
authorizations they issue. Conditions included in a permit or authorization to ensure consistency
with the TCMP goals and policies would likewise be enforceable against private parties through

established agency enforcement proceedings.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 3-10                          August 1996







                  In 1991, the Texas Legislature adopted far-reaching amendments to the Texas Water Code,
           the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the Texas Clean Air Act providing for criminal sanctions for
is ~~~violations of these statutes. In addition, the attorney general can seek monetary civil penalties and
           appropriate injunctive relief under these and other statutes networked under the TCMIP.

                  In addition to enforcing permits and authorizations directly or indirectly through the attorney
           general, state agencies also have procedures authorized by the APA or the agency's enabling
           legislation which allow the agency's consistency determination to be challenged by an aggrieved
           party in a contested case before the agency and ultimately in a court of law. The APA provides an
           independent basis for enforcement of the TCMP goals and policies by aggrieved parties by giving
           them the right to judicially challenge an agency's final decision.

                  Details of authorities to enforce the conditions of permits and authorizations subject to the
           TCMP can be found in Chapters Four and Five.

           D.     Local Government Involvement

                  Several program features ensure effective communication between the Council and local
           governments with the goal of integrating local governments into management of coastal natural
           resources. Local governments will be notified of relevant TCMP decisions, including those which
           may conflict with local land use plans or zoning ordinances. First, the Council includes as a full
           voting member a local government representative. This individual is responsible for ensuring that
           the interests of local governments are brought before the Council. This representative will also assist
           in communicating Council decisions to all local governments.

                  Second, an additional local government representative will be added to the Council as a non-
           voting member when the Council takes up any matter on review. By statute, this non-voting member
           must be from the jurisdiction affected by the matter before the Council. Thus, Council decisions will
           be directly communicated to the affected local government.

                  Third, the Council will establish a permanent advisory committee to ensure effective
           communication with all local interests, particularly local governments with land use authority.

















           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 3-11                          August 1996






                                                 CHAPTER FOUR.

                                       PROGRAM GOALS AND POLICIES

           A. Introduction

                   The statutory authorities and rules of networked agencies and subdivisions set standards
           by which "enforceable" administrative actions are taken to approve, with or without conditions,
           or disapprove activities that may adversely affect coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs). To
           create consistency among these many agencies and subdivisions, the Coastal Coordination Act
           requires these agencies and subdivisions to comply with a uniform set of coastal goals and
           policies when taking these actions. The TCWvI goals and policies reflect the state's priorities in
           balancing economic development with resource protection and provide consistent guidelines for
           coordinated management of the coast. The policies do not impose or create any requirement
           which is beyond the existing legal authority of any agency or local government, nor may they be
           applied in a manner that would result in the taking, damage, or destruction of property without
           adequate compensation.

                  It is a role of the Coastal Coordination Council (Council) to ensure that the proposed
           actions of the agencies and subdivisions are consistent with the goals and policies in this chapter.
           Upon approval of the TCMP under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Council will
           ensure that federal actions, activities, and Outer Continental Shelf plans are also consistent with
           these goals and policies. The procedures for consistency review are found in 31 TAC Chapters
           505 and 506 and described in Chapter Five of this document.

                  The first part of this chapter states the goals of the TCMP that guide the interpretation
           and implementation of the program (31 TAC ï¿½501.12). The second part lists all CNRAs which
           the policies are designed to protect. The third part lists the 21 policy categories of the TCMP and
           identifies the related state agency actions, the uses managed by the actions and policies, and the
           scope of authority of state agencies to manage the uses. This part of the chapter also describes
           the "Policy for Major Actions" and the "Administrative Policies," which provide guidance to
           agencies and subdivisions making administrative decisions (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½501.13 and 501.15).

                  The final part of this chapter, "Advisory Policies," describes those policies that make the
           TCMP a comprehensive program that serves as a planning tool. Advisory policies offer
           recommendations for future actions or programs and promote nonregulatory aspects of coastal
           management such as planning and acquisition. Additionally, they establish preferences for the
           siting and operation of certain activities and facilities.

                  Advisory policies are written to help foster innovative ways of responding to coastal
           management issues and resource protection concerns. Advisory policies are not enforceable;
           however, their inclusion in the TCMP document allows federal Coastal Zone Management
           (CZM) funds to be used by eligible entities.

                  This chapter is explanatory in nature; any legal interpretations should be based on the
.         ~~~rules adopted by the Council under 31 TAC Chapter 501.



           Texas Coastal Management Program Final ETS    Part 11 4-1                           August 1996







B. ICMP Goals

The goals of the TCMP are:0

   1. to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and
       values of CNRAs;

  2. to ensure sound management of all coastal resources by allowing for compatible
       economic development and multiple human uses of the coastal zone;

  3. to minimize loss of human life and property due to the impairment and loss of protective
       features of CNRAs;

  4. to ensure and enhance planned public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone in a
       manner that is compatible with private property rights and other uses of the coastal zone;

  5. to balance the benefits from economic development and multiple human uses of the
       coastal zone, the benefits from protecting, preserving, restoring, and enhancing CNRAs,
       the benefits from minimizing loss of human life and property, and the benefits from
       public access to and enjoyment of the coastal zone;

  6. to coordinate agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs by establishing
       clear, objective policies for the management of CNRAs; i

  7. to make agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs efficient by
       identifying and addressing duplication and conflicts among local, state, and federal
       regulatory and other programs for the management of CNRAs.

  8. to make agency and subdivision decision-making affecting CNRAs more effective by
       employing the most comprehensive, accurate, and reliable information and scientific data
       available and by developing, distributing for public comment, and maintaining a
       coordinated, publicly accessible geographic information system of maps of the coastal
       zone and CNRAs at the earliest possible date;

  9. to make coastal management processes visible, coherent, accessible, and accountable to
       the people of Texas by providing for public participation in the ongoing development and
       implementation of the Texas CMP; and

  10. to educate the public about the principal coastal problems of state concern and technology
       available for the protection and improved management of CNRAs.








Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 19 4-2                          August 1996







          C. Coastal Natural Resource Areas

                 To address the issues of concern, and in response to the requirements of the Coastal
          Coordination Act, the Coastal Coordination Council has designated the areas listed below as
          coastal natural resource areas requiring special management under the Coastal Management
          Program. Legal definitions can be found in Appendix B - Rules for TCMP Goals and Policies.

           * Waters of the open Gulf of Mexico are waters seaward of coastal barrier islands and bays
                 and estuaries and extending to the territorial limits of the state (i.e., approximately 10.36
                 mifles offshore). Waters in the open Gulf of Mexico serve as habitat for numerous
                 commercial and recreational fishery species.

           ï¿½    Waters under tidal influence are those waters in the state that are contained behind coastal
                 barrier islands and within bays and estuaries and rivers to the inland extent of tidal
                 influence. Together, waters in the open Gulf of Mexico and waters under tidal influence
                 are considered "coastal waters." Waters under tidal influence provide important aquatic
                 habitat, serve as prime recreation areas, and provide some domestic water supply.

              * Submerged lands are lands underlying waters under tidal influence or waters of the open
                 Gulf of Mexico that are owned by an agency or subdivision of the state, or by a person
                 other than the state. The sediments of coastal public submerged lands are habitat for a
                 diverse benthic, or bottom-dwelling, animal community.

           *    Coastal wetlands are those areas having a predominance of hydric soils that are inundated
0            ~     ~~~~or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
                 support, and that under normal circumstances support, the growth and regeneration of
                hydrophytic vegetation, as defined in the Texas Water Code, Chapter I11, Subchapter J,
                and that lie within the Coastal Facility Designation Line and within one mile from the
                mean high tide line of tidal river and stream segments to the inland extent of tidal
                influence, except for the Trinity and Neches rivers. On the Trinity River, coastal
                wetlands are those wetlands occurring within the area located between the mean high tide
                line on the western shoreline of the river and FM Road 565 and FM Road 1409, and
                wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline
                of that portion of the river and FM Road 563. On the Neches River, coastal wetlands are
                those wetlands occurring within one mile of the mean high tide line on the western
                shoreline of the river, and wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide
                line on the eastern shoreline of that portion of the river and FM Road 105. Coastal
                wetlands provide wildlife habitat, convey and store floodwaters, trap sediment, and
                reduce water pollution.

           *    Submerged aquatic vegetation is rooted aquatic vegetation growing in permanently
                inundated areas in estuarine and marine systems. Submerged aquatic vegetation provides
                valuable habitat for numerous commercial and recreational fishery organisms and for
                wildlife.

           *    Tidal sand and mud flats are silt, clay, or sand substrates, unvegetated or vegetated by
                algal mats, that occur in the intertidal zone and that are regularly or intermittently

         Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-3                         August 1996







       exposed and flooded by tides. Mud flats and sand flats are the feeding grounds for
       coastal shorebirds, fish, and invertebrates. g

    0 Oyster reefs are natural or artificial formations in intertidal or subtidal areas that are
       composed of oyster shell, live oysters, and other organisms and that are discrete,
       contiguous, and clearly distinguishable from scattered oysters. Oyster reefs not only
       support the oyster fishery but also serve as habitat, forage ground, or hiding places for
       numerous estuarine species.

    * Hard substrate reefs are naturally occurring hard substrate formations, such as rock
       outcrops or serpulid worm reefs (living or dead), in intertidal or subtidal areas that are
       discrete and contiguous. Hard substrate reefs provide habitat for numerous invertebrates.

    * Coastal barriers are undeveloped areas on barrier islands and peninsulas or otherwise
       protected areas, as mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., Coastal Barrier
       Resource System Units). Coastal barriers are subject to wave, tidal, and wind energy from
       the Gulf of Mexico. Barrier islands are Galveston, Matagorda, San Jose, Mustang, and
       North and South Padre islands. Coastal barriers act as important buffers against coastal
       storms and protect coastal natural resource areas and the mainland from erosion, flooding,
       and destruction.

  *    Coastal shore areas are all areas within I100 feet landward of the high water mark on
       submerged land. Shore areas function as buffers, protecting upland habitats from erosion
       and storm damage and adjacent marshes and waterways from water quality degradation.
       Designation of coastal shore areas as a CNRA is exclusively intended to address erosion
       impacts within coastal shore areas.

  *    Gulf beaches are beaches bordering on the Gulf of Mexico that extend inland from the
       line of mean low tide to the natural line of vegetation bordering on the seaward shore of
       the Gulf of Mexico, or such larger contiguous area to which the public has acquired a
       right of use or easement to or over by prescription, dedication, or estoppel, or has retained
       a right by virtue of continuous right in the public since time immemorial. Texas beaches
       serve as important recreational areas and provide protection for landward structures
       during storms.

  *    Critical dune areas are protected sand dune complexes on the Gulf shoreline within
       1,000 feet of mean high tide. Sand dunes help prevent loss of life and property by
       absorbing the impact of storm surge and high waves and by stopping or delaying
       intrusion of water inland.

  *    Special hazard areas are areas designated by the administrator of the Federal Insurance
       Administration under the National Flood Insurance Act as having special flood, mudslide
       (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on a Flood Hazard
       Boundary Map or Flood Insurance Rate Map as Zone A, AO, Al -30, AE, A99, AH, VO,
       V 1 -3 0, VE, V, M, or E. These areas are important because they receive the brunt of
       storms, act as natural water-detention systems, and are natural filters for upland runoff.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 4-4                        August 1996







            *    Critical erosion areas are those Gulf and bay shorelines that are undergoing erosion and
                 are designated by the commissioner of the GLO under Texas Natural Resources Code,
0              ~    ~~~~ï¿½33.601(b). Critical erosion areas require comprehensive management because loss of
                 life and property can result if development occurs in these areas.

            *    Coastal historic areas are sites in the National Register of Historic Places on public land
                 and state archaeological landmarks that are identified by the Texas Historical
                 Commission as being coastal in character. Coastal historic areas provide important
                 information about the coastal history and culture of the state.

           *    Coastal preserves are any lands owned by the state that are designated and used as parks,
                 recreation areas, scientific areas, wildlife management areas, wildlife refuges, or historic
                 sites and that are designated by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as being coastal
                 in character. These areas are valued for the recreational opportunities they afford and for
                 the diverse habitats they comprise.


































         Texas Coastal Management Program Final ETS    Part II 4-5                            August 1996







D. Enforceable Policies of the TCMP


POLICY CATEGORY 1: CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRIC GENERATING AND
                              TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

State Acencv Action and Manaced Uses

PUC - Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(b))

Construction of new electric generating units and new electric transmission lines; i.e., lines used
for bulk transmission of electricity and all lines operating at 60,000 volts or more (TEX. REV.
CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c, ï¿½50, and 16 TAC ï¿½23.3 1). Construction of new electric high
voltage switching stations or new electric substations within a utility's certificated area do not
require a certificate of convenience and necessity and therefore are not a use managed by the
following policies (16 TAC ï¿½23.3 1).

Policies

The Public Utility Commission shall comply with the policies in this category when issuing
certificates of convenience and necessity and adopting rules under the Public Utility Regulatory
Act (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c, governing construction of electric generating
facilities, electric transmission lines, and associated facilities in the coastal zone).

Construction of electric generating facilities and electric transmission lines in the coastal zone
shall comply with the policies in this category.

 A.   New electric generating facilities shall, where practicable, be located at previously
       developed sites. New electric generating facilities at undeveloped sites shall be located so
       that future expansion will avoid construction in critical areas, Gulf beaches, critical
       dunes, and washovers to the greatest extent practicable. To the extent applicable to the
       public beach, these policies are supplemental to any further restrictions or requirements
       relating to the beach access and use rights of the public.

  B.   Electric generating facilities using once-through cooling systems shall be located and
       designed to have the least adverse effects practicable, including impingement or
       entrainment of estuarine organisms.

 C.   Electric generating facilities shall be constructed at sites selected to have the least adverse
       effects practicable on recreational uses of CNRAs and on areas used for spawning,
       nesting, and seasonal migrations of terrestrial and aquatic fish and wildlife species.

 D.   Electric transmission lines to or on Coastal Barrier Resource System Units and Otherwise
       Protected Areas designated on maps dated October 24, 1990, under the Coastal Barrier
       Resources Act, 16 U.S.C.A. ï¿½3503(a) on coastal barriers shall:


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-6                             August 1996







               be located, where practicable, in existing rights-of-way or previously disturbed
               areas if necessary to avoid or minimize adverse effects; and

        ii.    be located at sites at which future expansion shall avoid construction in critical
               areas, Gulf beaches, critical dunes, and washovers to the greatest extent
               practicable.

Manacement Authority and Administration

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) regulates public utilities, including the
construction of electric generating facilities, electric transmission lines, and associated facilities
in the coastal zone. Under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art.
1446c), the PUC has the authority to establish a comprehensive regulatory system to regulate
public utilities; to assure rates, operations, and services; and to "do all things ... necessary and
convenient to the exercise of these powers and jurisdiction."

Before a utility can construct a transmission line or power plant, it must apply for a "Certificate
of Convenience and Necessity" (3 TAC Ch. 21), which must require compliance with the above
policies (31 TAC ï¿½ 501.14(a)). The utility is required to notify and coordinate with the
appropriate state and federal agencies which enforce environmental requirements. The PUC also
requires evidence from the utility that all requirements and regulations of local, state, and federal
agencies have been met, including obtaining required permits and authorizations. These
requirements of the PUC will ensure that other TCMP policies applicable to electric generating
and transmission facilities are met.

Exemptions

Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. A certificate of convenience and necessity is not
required for a new electric high voltage switching station or a new electric substation within the
utility's certificated area (16 TAC ï¿½23.3 1).

Variances

Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. None.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. The PUC does not independently monitor or
enforce compliance with environmental and resource protection regulations.

Aaencv's Authority to Reeulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

Certificate of Convenience and Necessity. Certificates of convenience and necessity must be
granted on a nondiscriminatory basis after consideration by the commission of the adequacy of
existing service, the effect of the granting of the certificate on the recipient of the certificate and
on any public utility of the same kind already serving the proximate area, and on such factors as
community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, environmental

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-7                            August 1996







integrity, and the probable improvement of service or lowering of cost to consumers in the area
resulting from the granting of such certificate (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c,
ï¿½54(c)).

















































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-8                            August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 2: CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
                            OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
                            FACILITIES

State Avencv Action and Managed Uses

SLB - Mineral Lease Plan of Operations
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(1))

Drilling activities; alterations to the natural landscape; surface and bottom-hole location of the
initial well; location of additional planned wells and production facilities; location of shipping
fairways and anchorage areas; anticipated routes for pipelines; and location of routes of dredging
required for all production-related activities, such as pipelines, well-drilling, and construction of
facilities.

GLO - Geophysical or Geochemical Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(2)

Geophysical and geochemical exploration. Geophysical exploration means a survey or
investigation conducted to discover or locate minerals or oil and gas prospects using magnetic,
gravity, seismic, and/or electrical techniques. Geochemical exploration means a survey or
investigation conducted to discover or locate minerals or oil and gas prospects using techniques
involving soil sampling and analysis (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.321 and ï¿½53.161).

GLO - Miscellaneous Easement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(4))

Construction and placement of telephone, telegraph, electric transmission, and power lines; oil
pipelines; gas pipelines and sulphur pipelines; other electric lines and pipelines of any nature;
irrigation canals, laterals, and water pipelines; roads; and any other purpose the commissioner
considers to be in the best interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291).
Construction and placement of electric substations, pumping stations, loading racks, and tank
farms on state land other than land owned by the University of Texas System (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.292).

GLO - Surface Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(6))

Unsold public school land and asylum land may be leased for agricultural, grazing, or
commercial purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.121).

SLB - Coastal Easement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(3))

Dredging of basins and channels on state-owned submerged land; construction of piers, docks,
marinas, bulkheads, seawalls, and other waterfront structures on state-owned submerged land.
The School Land Board may also grant easement rights to the owner of adjacent littoral property

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-9                           August 1996







authorizing the placement or location of a structure on coastal public land for purposes connected
with the ownership of littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.1 11).

Policies

The GLO and SLB shall comply with the policies in this category when approving oil, gas, and
other mineral lease plans of operations and granting surface leases, easements, and permits and
adopting rules under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 32, 33 and 5 1-53, governing
oil and gas exploration and production on submerged lands.

  I1.   Oil and gas exploration and production on submerged lands shall comply with the
       policies in this category.

       A.     In or near critical areas, facilities shall be located and operated and geophysical
               and other operations shall be located and conducted in such a manner as to avoid
               and otherwise minimize adverse effects, including those from the disposal of solid
               waste and disturbance resulting from the operation of vessels and wheeled or
               tracked vehicles, whether on areas under lease, easement, or permit or on or
               across access routes thereto. Where practicable, buffer zones for critical areas
               shall be established and directional drilling or other methods to avoid disturbance,
               such as pooling or unitization, shall be employed.

       B.     Lessees, easement holders, and permittees shall construct facilities in a manner
               that avoids impoundment or draining of coastal wetlands, if practicable, and shall
               mitigate any adverse effects on coastal wetlands impounded or drained in
               accordance with the sequencing requirements in 31 TAC ï¿½50 1. 14(h) (relating to
               Development in Critical Areas).

       C.     Upon completion or cessation of operations, lessees, easement holders, and
              permittees shall remove facilities and restore any significantly degraded areas to
               pre-project conditions as closely as practicable, unless facilities can be used for
               maintenance or enhancement of CNRAs or unless restoration activities would
               further degrade CNRAs.

 2.   To the extent applicable to the public beach, these policies are supplemental to any
       further restrictions or requirements relating to the beach access and use rights of the
       public.

Manaeement Authority and Administration

The GLO and SLB are the management entities for oil and gas exploration and production on
state submerged lands under the authority of chapters 32, 33, and 51-53 of the Texas Natural
Resources Code. The GLO and SLB serve proprietary rather than regulatory roles and determine
whether a proposed use of state land is appropriate. Standards and procedures for granting
permits and leases for geophysical and geochemical exploration for and production of oil and gas
on state-owned land are established in 31 TAC Chapter 9. The rules set out provisions to prevent
damage to or pollution of all lands and waters, including restrictions on the release of solid

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4- 10                         August 1996







wastes; restrictions on the use of vehicles to minimize impacts to submerged lands and marshes;
provisions for the protection of natural resources, including aquatic life and wildlife, from
seismic and production operations; and provisions for remediation of any surface damage from
operations.

Oil and gas leases may be issued for islands, saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, and marshes owned by
the state within tidewater limits; rivers and channels owned by the state; the portion of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state; all unsold surveyed and unsurveyed public school
land; and all land sold with a reservation of minerals to the state under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½51.054 in which the state has retained leasing rights.

A mineral lease plan of operations is not currently a condition of the lease application process.
Applications for mineral leases may contain any information the commissioner requires (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.015).

Under 31 TAC Chapter 155, coastal easements are issued to lessees for the dredging of channels
to allow access to oil and gas exploration and production sites. The rules establish standards and
criteria for the siting, design, and construction of dredged channels and dredged material disposal
areas. Under 31 TAC Chapter 13, miscellaneous easements are granted for rights-of-way across
public lands for oil and gas pipelines, and surface leases are granted for structures such as oil and
gas platforms on state submerged lands.

Exemptions

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. Holders of valid oil and gas leases are not required to
have a permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

Variances

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. Mineral lease plans are not currently a condition for
obtaining a mineral lease.

Monitorin, and Enforcement

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. A violation of the conditions or provisions of a
geophysical or geochemical permit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100
nor more than $1,000 per day (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.325). All operations are
subject to inspection and monitoring by the commissioner or the commissioner's representatives
at any time. Within 30 days of the expiration of the permit, the permittee must file with the
commissioner a sworn "summary of activities" report (31 TAC ï¿½9.4(f)).

Coastal Easement. Any construction or placement on coastal public land without first obtaining
a coastal easement of a structure from the GLO is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $200
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can also result in penalties of no more
than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure, or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT.
RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-11                          August 1996







Miscellaneous Easement. Existing miscellaneous easements must be renewed periodically. No
easements may be granted for a term longer than 10 years, but the commissioner may set any
term deemed to be in the best interest of the state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ï¿½51.296). No person
may undertake the activities described above on state-owned land without a miscellaneous
easement from the commissioner or the board. A person without an easement is subject to a
penalty of not more than $1,000 per day, the removal of the structure, or the filing of a lien
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Anenev's Authority to ReQulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policv

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. The commissioner may include in the lease any provision
the commissioner considers necessary for protection of the interests of the state. TEX. NAT.
RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.016(b).

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. Permits are required for all exploration on public school,
land, which includes all land dedicated to the permanent free school fund and specifically
includes land with a mineral classification in which the state has retained the oil and gas interest
and areas within tidewater limits (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.321). Except for a person
who has a valid oil and gas lease on public school land, a person may not conduct geophysical
and geochemical exploration without a permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322). The
commissioner may make rules relating to geophysical or geochemical exploration, permits, or
permittees the commissioner considers appropriate (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.324 and
ï¿½53.163).

Miscellaneous Easement. The grant of a miscellaneous easement may contain any provisions
that the commissioner considers necessary to protect the interests of the state and may be
perpetual or for a term of years (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.305).























Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part H 4-12                          August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 3: DISCHARGES OF WASTEWATER AND DISPOSAL OF
                             WASTE FROM OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
                             PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

State Aeencv Action and Managed Uses

RRC - Waste Disposal or Storage Pit Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(c)(2))

Maintenance or use of a pit for storage of oil field fluids or oil and gas wastes (16 TAC ï¿½3.8).

RRC - Wastewater Discharge Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(c)(1))

Disposal of wastewater generated in connection with activities associated with the exploration,
development, and production of oil or gas or geothermal resources into coastal waters. Before a
permit is issued, the Railroad Commission must determine that the discharge will not result in
pollution or in a violation of Texas Water Quality Standards (16 TAC ï¿½3.8).

Policies

  1.   Disposal of oil and gas waste in the coastal zone shall comply with the policies in this
       category.

       A.     No new commercial oil and gas waste disposal pits shall be located in any CNRA.

       B.     Oil and gas waste disposal pits shall be designed to prevent releases of pollutants
              that adversely affect coastal waters or critical areas.

 2.   Discharge of oil and gas exploration and production wastewater in the coastal zone shall
       comply with the following policies.

       A.     All discharges shall comply with all provisions of surface water quality standards
              established by the TNRCC under Policy Category 6.

       B.     To the greatest extent practicable, new wastewater outfalls shall be located where
              the discharge will not adversely affect critical areas. Existing wastewater outfalls
              that adversely affect critical areas shall be either discontinued or relocated so as
              not to adversely affect critical areas within two years of the effective date of these
              rules.

       C.     The RRC shall notify the TNRCC and the TPWD upon receipt of an application
              for a new permit to discharge produced waters to waters under tidal influence. In
              determining compliance with these policies, the RRC shall consider the effects of
              salinity from the discharge.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-13                            August 1996







Management Authority and Administration

Under the authority of Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 91, and Texas Water Code,                    0
Chapter 26, the RRC regulates the management of oil and gas waste and wastewater discharges
from exploration and production activities. The RRC must comply with the policies for the
discharge of wastewater and disposal of waste from oil and gas exploration and production
activities when issuing permits and adopting rules under these authorities.

The RRC authorizes some oil and gas waste management practices by rule. For instance, low-
chloride, water-based drilling fluids and the associated drill cuttings may be landfarmed on the
lease where they were generated with the written permission of the surface owner. Drill cuttings
and dewatered water-based drilling fluids may be disposed of by burial at the site where they
were generated. Dewatered completion and workover wastes and basic sediment may be
disposed of in on-site pits.

A permit is required for oil and gas waste pits and disposal methods not specifically authorized
by rule. For instance, emergency saltwater storage pits, gas plant evaporation/retention pits, and
collecting pits must be permitted.

RRC rules require that oil and gas waste disposal pits, whether authorized by rule or permit, be
designed, constructed, and operated in a manner that will prevent pollution of surface and
subsurface waters. Additional disposal practice requirements may be imposed by permit
conditions. In most cases, RRC rules prohibit the discharge of oil and gas waste to surface
waters without a permit. RRC rules do authorize the discharge of oil-free drill cuttings and
drilling fluids into the Gulf of Mexico.

Exempfions

Waste Disposal or Storage Pit Permit. The authority granted to the commission does not
include the authority to adopt and enforce rules and orders or issue permits regarding the
collection, storage, handling, transportation, processing, or disposal of waste arising out of or
incidental to activities associated with gasoline plants, natural gas or natural gas liquid
processing plants, pressure maintenance plants, or repressurizing plants if that waste is a
hazardous waste as defined by the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½91.101). A
person may, without a permit, maintain or use reserve pits, mud circulation pits,
completion/workover pits, basic sediment pits, flare pits, fresh makeup water pits, fresh mining
water pits, and water condensate pits on condition that only limited types of fluids or wastes are
placed within such pits (16 TAC ï¿½3.8(d)(4)).

Wastewater Discharge Permit. None.

Variances

Waste Disposal or Storage Pit Permit. No express provisions for variances are contained in 16
TAC ï¿½3.8; however, emergency waste disposal and storage pit permit procedures are established
in 16 TAC ï¿½3.8(d)(6)(F).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-14                          August 1996







Wastewater Discharge Permit. None.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Waste Disposal or Storage Pit Permit and Wastewater Discharge Permit. Members and
employees of the commission, on proper identification, may enter public or private property to
inspect and investigate conditions relating to the quality of water in the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½91.1012). Violations may subject a person to administrative penalties of up to
$10,000 per day for each violation as well as criminal penalties (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½81.0531 and ï¿½91.002).

Agency's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

Waste Disposal or Storage Pit Permit and Wastewater Discharge Permit. The RRC is
required to adopt rules and issue permits as necessary to prevent pollution of surface and
subsurface water related to oil and gas exploration and production activities (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½91.101).


































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   PartII 4-15                          August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 4:  CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SOLID WASTE
                             TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

State Acenov Action and Manaced Uses

TNRCC - Permit for Solid or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(f)(3))

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the solid waste facilities used to store, process, or
dispose of solid waste (TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ï¿½361.061). Solid waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities include hazardous waste storage or processing facilities,
land treatment facilities, waste piles, storage surface impoundments, and landfills. These policies
apply to both new facilities and areal expansion of existing facilities.

Policies

Construction and operation of solid waste facilities in the coastal zone shall comply with the
policies in this category.

 A.   A landfill at which hazardous waste is received for a fee shall not be located in a critical
       area, a critical dune area, a critical erosion area, or the 100-year floodplain of a perennial
       stream delineated on a flood map adopted by the Federal Emergency Management
       Agency after September 1, 1985, as zone A1-99, VO, or VI-30. This policy shall not
       apply to any facility for which either an application or a notice of intent to file an
       application was filed with the TNRCC as of September 1, 1985.

 B.   Except as provided in paragraphs A and B of this policy category, a hazardous -waste
       landfill shall not be located in a special hazard area existing before site development
       except in an area with a flood depth of less than three feet. Any hazardous waste landfill
       within a special hazard area must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to
       prevent washout of any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood.

       i.     The areal expansion of a landfill in a special hazard area may be allowed if the
              applicant demonstrates that the facility design will prevent the physical transport
              of any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood event.

       ii.    A new commercial hazardous waste management facility landfill unit may not be
              located in a special hazard area unless the applicant demonstrates that the facility
              design will prevent the physical transport of any hazardous waste by a 100-year
              flood.

 C.   Hazardous waste storage or processing facilities, land treatment facilities, waste piles, and
       storage surface impoundments shall not be located in special hazard areas unless they are
       designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent washout of any hazardous
       waste by a 100-year flood.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-16                           August 1996







             D.   Hazardous waste land treatment facilities, waste piles, storage surface impoundments,
                   and landfills shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an area subject to active'coastal
 0              ~    ~~~~shoreline erosion, if the area is protected by a barrier island or peninsula, unless the
                   design, construction, and operational features of the facility will prevent adverse effects
                   resulting from storm surge and erosion or scouring by water. On coastal shorelines which
                   are subject to active shoreline erosion and which are unprotected by a barrier island or
                   peninsula, a separation distance from the shoreline to the facility must be at least 5,000
                   feet, unless the design, construction, and operational features of the facility will prevent
                   adverse effects resulting from storm surge and erosion or scouring by water.

             E.   Hazardous waste storage or processing facilities, land treatment facilities, waste piles,
                   storage surface impoundments, and landfills shall not be located in coastal wetlands or in
                   any CNRA that is the critical habitat of an endangered species of plant or animal unless
                   the design, construction, and operation features of the facility will prevent adverse effects
                   on the critical habitat of the endangered species.

             F.   Hazardous waste land treatment facilities, waste piles, storage surface impoundments,
                   and landfills shall not be located on coastal barrers.

             G.   Hazardous waste landfills are prohibited if there is a practicable alternative to such a
                   landfill that is reasonably available to manage the types and classes of hazardous waste
                   which might be disposed of at the landfill.

             H.   The TNRCC shall not issue a permit for a new hazardous waste management facility or
                   the areal expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility unless it finds that the
                   proposed site, when evaluated in light of proposed design, construction, and operational
                   features, reasonably minimizes possible contamination of coastal waters.

             I.   New solid waste facilities and areal expansion of existing solid waste facilities shall be
                   sited, designed, constructed, and operated to prevent releases of pollutants that may
                   adversely affect CNRAs and, at a minimum, shall comply with standards established
                   under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.A. ï¿½6901 et seq.).

           Manaaernent Authority and Administration

           Under the authority of the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, which is codified in Texas Health
           and Safety Code, Chapter 361, the TNRCC implements a permitting program for solid waste
           disposal sites. The TNRCC must comply with the policies in this category when issuing permits
           and adopting rules governing the construction and operation of solid waste facilities in the
           coastal zone.

           Title 30 TAC Chapter 305 sets forth the standards and requirements for applications, permits,
           and TNRCC actions to carry out the responsibilities for management of all solid waste treatment,
           storage, and disposal activities.

.          ~~~Title 30 TAC Chapter 3 35 establishes standards and enforcement provisions to implement the
           state hazardous waste program, which regulates, from the point of generation to ultimate

           Texas Coastal Management Piogram Final EIS    Part HI 4-17                           August 1996







disposal, those wastes which have been identified as hazardous by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 261.
Regulations include standards for the location of certain hazardous waste facilities, including
certain prohibited locations such as wetlands, barrier islands, and peninsulas; land disposal of
hazardous wastes; pollution prevention through hazardous waste source reduction and hazardous
waste minimization; and hazardous waste closure, corrective actions, and remediation activities
to provide risk reduction to levels protective of human health and the environment.

Sludge use and disposal standards are set forth in 30 TAC Chapter 312. Rules for solid waste
disposal facility permits and operations are set forth in 30 TAC Chapter 330. Discharge of
pollutants or solid waste to water in the state is prohibited. Permits are required for solid waste
disposal facilities, and facilities must follow strict state and federal siting, design, and operation
standards. Facilities that process municipal solid waste, such as incinerators, are also regulated
by the program.

Exemptions

Permit for Solid or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal. The commission
may not require a permit for the collection, handling, storage, processing, and disposal of
industrial solid waste that is disposed within the boundaries of a tract of land that is: (1) owned
or otherwise effectively controlled by the owners or operators of the particular industrial plant,
manufacturing plant, mining operation, or agricultural operation from which the waste results or
is produced; and (2) located within 50 miles from the plant or operation that is the source of the
industrial solid waste. The commission may, however, adopt rules to control the collection,
handling, storage, processing, and disposal of the industrial solid waste to protect the property of
others, public property and rights-of-way, groundwater, and other rights requiring protection
(TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ï¿½361.090).

Variances

Permit for Solid or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or DisposaL There is no statutory
provision expressly granting variance authority.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Permit for Solid or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Agents or employees
of the commission or local governments have the right to enter, at any reasonable time, public or
private property to inspect and investigate conditions concerning solid waste management and
control (TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ï¿½361.032). Persons violating the Solid
Waste Disposal Act are subject to administrative penalties of $10,000 per day and civil penalties
(TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. ï¿½361.251 and ï¿½361.223).

Avencv's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policv

Permit for Solid or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal The commission
may amend, extend, or renew a permit it issues in accordance with reasonable procedures
prescribed by the department or commission, as appropriate (TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
ANN. ï¿½361.088).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-18                           August 1996







               POLICY CATEGORY 5:  PREVENTION, RESPONSE, AND REMEDIATION OF OIL
Is SPILLS

               State Agencv Action and Managed Uses

               GLO - Rules Governing Handling of Oil on Vessels and in Facilities
               (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2051(a))

               GLO rules governing prevention of, response to, and remediation of coastal oil spills, and the
               assessment of damages to natural resources injured as the result of an unauthorized discharge of
               oil into coastal waters.

               Policies

                 1.   The GLO regulations governing prevention of, response to, and remediation of coastal oil
                      spills shall provide for measures to prevent coastal oil spills and to ensure adequate
                      response and removal actions. The GLO regulations for certification of vessels and
                      facilities that handle oil shall be designed to ensure that vessels and facilities are capable
                      of prompt response and adequate removal of unauthorized discharges of oil. The GLO
                      regulations adopted pursuant to the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (OSPRA)
                      (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE, Ch. 40), shall be consistent with the State Coastal Discharge
                      Contingency Plan, adopted pursuant to OSPRA, and the National Contingency Plan,
                      adopted pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.A., ï¿½26).

                2.   GLO rules under OSPRA governing the assessment of damages to natural resources
                      injured as the result of an unauthorized discharge of oil into coastal waters shall provide
                      for reasonable and rational procedures for assessing damages and shall take into account
                      the unique circumstances of the spill incident. The costs of assessing the damages shall
                      not be disproportionate to the value of the injured resources. Plans for restoration,
                      rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources shall provide for
                      participation by the public and shall be designed to promote the restoration of the injured
                      resources with all deliberate speed. The GLO rules shall be consistent with other
                      applicable state rules and policies and with the TCMP goals and policies.

               Management Authority and Administration

               Under the authority of Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 40, the GLO promulgated rules
               (31 TAC Ch. 19) requiring coastal facilities that handle oil to obtain a certificate of spill
               prevention and response capability from the GLO. The rules require that vessels carrying oil in
               coastal waters have a spill prevention and response plan approved by the GLO.

               The rules also address spill response and remediation, establishing standards for spill response
               plans, requiring facilities and vessels to maintain access to adequate response equipment and
               qualified personnel, and providing for the GLO to subject facilities and vessels to announced and
               unannounced drills and inspections. The GLO also adopted a state coastal contingency plan that
               established standards for response to oil spills in the coastal zone.


               Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-19                           August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 6:  DISCHARGE OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
                             WASTEWATER TO COASTAL WATERS

State Aoencv Action and Managed Uses

TNRCC - Wastewater Discharge Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(f)(1))

TNRCC - Permit for a New Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Located One Mile or Less
from a Critical Area or Coastal Waters (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(f)(2))

The commission issues permits for the point-source discharge of wastewater into or adjacent to
waters in the state (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.027). Point source means any discernable
confined and discrete conveyance including a discrete fissure, pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants or
wastes may be discharged. Municipal and industrial wastewater includes waterborne liquid,
gaseous, or solid substances that result from any discharge from a publicly owned sewer system,
treatment facility, or disposal system, or from any process of industry, manufacturing, trade, or
business (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.001).

Policies

The TNRCC shall comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules and authorizing
wastewater discharges under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26.

  1. TNRCC rules shall:

       A.     comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 33 United-States Code
              Annotated, ï¿½ 1251 et seq., and implementing regulations at Code of Federal
              Regulations, Title 40, which include establishing surface water quality standards
              in order to protect designated uses of coastal waters, including the protection of
              uses for water supply, recreational purposes, and propagation and protection of
              terrestrial and aquatic life, and establishing water-quality-based effluent limits,
              including toxicity monitoring and specific toxicity or chemical limits as necessary
              to protect designated uses of coastal waters;

       B.     provide for the assessment of water quality on a coastal watershed basis once
              every two years, as required by the Texas Water Code, ï¿½26.0135(d);

       C.     to the greatest extent practicable, provide that all permits for the discharge of
              wastewater within a given watershed or region of a single watershed contain the
              same expiration date in order to evaluate the combined effects of permitted
              discharges on water quality within that watershed or region;

       D.     identify and rank waters that are not attaining designated uses and establish total
              maximum daily pollutant loads in accordance with those rankings; and


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-20                             August 1996







                     E.     require that increases in pollutant loads to coastal waters shall not:

                             i.     impair designated uses of coastal waters; or
                             ii.    result in degradation of coastal waters that exceed fishable/swimmable
                                    quality except in cases where lowering coastal water quality is necessary
                                    for important economic or social development.

                2.   Discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater in the coastal zone shall comply with
                     the following policies.

                     A.     Discharges shall comply with water-quality-based effluent limits.

                     B.     Discharges that increase pollutant loadings to coastal waters shall not impair
                            designated uses of coastal waters and shall not significantly degrade coastal water
                            quality unless necessary for important economic or social development.

                     C.     To the greatest extent practicable, new wastewater outfalls shall be located where
                            they will not adversely affect critical areas.

               3.   The TNRCC shall consult with the Texas Department of Health when reviewing permit
                     applications for wastewater discharges that may significantly adversely affect oyster
                     reefs.

             Management Authority and Administration

             Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, states that it is the policy of the state to maintain the quality of
             water in the state consistent with the public health and enjoyment, the propagation and protection
             of terrestrial and aquatic life, the operation of existing industries, and the economic development
             of the state and to require the use of all reasonable methods to implement this policy. The
             TNRCC is designated as the principal authority in the state on matters relating to water quality.
             The TNRCC administers regulatory programs related to water quality management and coastal
             resource protection, including (1) Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS); (2) the
             Texas State Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP); and (3) wastewater permits. The
             TNRCC must comply with these policies when adopting rules and authorizing wastewater
             discharges under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26.

             The TNR'CC sets water quality standards in the state by rule under 30 TAC Chapter 307. The
             TSWQS are used in conjunction with the wastewater permitting program. The TNRCC must
             consider the existence and effects of nonpoint-source pollution, toxic materials, and nutrient
             loading in developing and implementing the standards and related waste load models for water
             quality. Triennial review of the TSWQS is required by EPA and by ï¿½303 of the Clean Water
             Act.

             Water quality standards occur as three classes of criteria:

is 1.  Narrative criteria - qualitative standards or general statements that are used to identify
                     impacts on designated uses and as a regulatory basis for controlling impacts to state

             Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-21                          August 1996







       waters. Narrative criteria may address aesthetics, prohibit certain actions or conditions
       (e.g., "free from substances that produce undesirable or    nuisance aquatic life"), or
       state what is expected to occur in the water (e.g., "water quality and aquatic life shall be
       as it naturally occurs").

  2.  Numerical criteria - quantitative standards or numerical values for chemical constituents,
       physical parameters, or biological conditions established to protect one or more
       designated uses. These may be values that may not be exceeded (e.g., toxics), values that
       must be exceeded (e.g., dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the two (e.g., Ph).

  3.  Designated uses - indicate the existing uses to be protected (e.g., certain aquatic life,
       water supply, recreation, and navigation).

Each stream segment or water body is either classified with site-specific numerical and
designated use standards, or unclassified, protected under general standards and assigned
minimum presumned uses and standards. The classified segment-specific uses include (1) several
categories of aquatic life; (2) contact or non-contact recreation; (3) domestic water supply; (4)
navigation; and (5) industrial water supply. Most rivers and their major tributaries, major
reservoirs, and estuarine waters are classified.

The TSWQS also set forth an antidegradation policy which prohibits increases in pollutant
loading that would impair existing water- quality-related uses. The policy sets forth extra
protection for high-quality water bodies. It stipulates, in accordance with EPA policy, that no
degradation will be allowed in high-quality waters unless the resulting degradation is
demonstrated to be economically and socially justified.

The WQMIP, which is required by federal legislation and Texas Water Code ï¿½26.0 12, addresses
such elements as wastewater facility needs, wastewater facility design, population projections,
management agency designation, water quality problem identification, and waste load
evaluations. This plan is updated as needed to fill information gaps and to revise certified and
approved plans. Federal and state-funded construction projects for wastewater facilities are
evaluated for conformance with applicable WQMP recommendations. New wastewater permits,
renewals, and amendments are reviewed to determine consistency with the WQMP.

With the exception of the discharge of oil and gas waste to surface waters, which are regulated
by the Railroad Commission, any entity that discharges waste into or adjacent to waters of the
state, including the land disposal of wastewater by means of irrigation, evaporation, and
subsurface injection, must be authorized by the TNRCC by rule, permit, or order. "Discharge
permits" refer to the direct discharge of effluent into waters, and "no discharge" permits refer to
the disposal of wastewater by irrigation or evaporation.

Municipal wastewater permits are issued to any domestic waste discharger in the form of a new,
amended, or renewal permit. Title 30 TAC Chapter 309 establishes minimum standards for
effluent quality for treated domestic sewage to maintain the TSWQS. The rules also include
siting restrictions for domestic sewage plans. The TNRCC may not issue a permit if the siting
restrictions listed in 30 TAG ï¿½309.13 are not met.


Texas Coastal Management Program Fitial EIS   Part 11 4-22                         August 1996







           Title 30 TAC Chapter 317 contains design criteria for municipal sewerage systems which serve
           as minimum guidelines to be used for comprehensive consideration of sewage collection,
           treatment, and disposal systems and establishes the minimum design criteria compatible with
           existing state statutes pertaining to effluent quality.

           Industrial wastewater permits are issued to industrial facilities for direct discharge of wastewater
           or for the land disposal of wastewater by means of irrigation, evaporation, and/or septic systems.

           Title 3 0 TAG Chapter 3 10 establishes water quality criteria, design, and operational requirements
           for reuse of reclaimed water (treated effluent) which may be substituted for potable water and/or
           fresh water. Title 30 Chapter 312 sets forth sludge use and disposal standards. Title 30 Chapter
           314 sets forth toxic pollutant effluent standards. Title 30 Chapter 319 sets forth general
           regulations incorporated into permits, including minimum standards for effluent monitoring and
           reporting, and hazardous metal effluent limitations.

           Waters of the state include groundwater, percolating or otherwise, lakes, bays, ponds,
           impounding reservoirs, springs, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Gulf
           of Mexico (inside the territorial limits of the state), and all other bodies of surface water
           including the beds and banks of all watercourses that are wholly are partially inside or bordering
           the state or inside the jurisdiction of the state (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.001 (5)).

           Except as authorized by permit, rule, or order issued by the commission, no person may
           discharge wastewater into or adjacent to any waters in the state (TEX. WAThR CODE ANN.
.         ~~~ï¿½26.121).

           Exemptions

           Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit for a New Concentrated Animal Feeding
           Operation Located One Mile or Less From a Critical Area or Coastal Waters. None.

           Variances

          Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit for a New Concentrated Animal Feeding
           Operation Located One Mile or Less from a Critical Area or Coastal Waters. None.

           Monitoring and Enforcement

          Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit for a New Concentrated Animal Feeding
           Operation Located One Mile or Less From a Critical Area or Coastal Waters. The
          members of the commission and their agents may enter any property for the purpose of
           inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the water quality of the state (TEX. WATER
           CODE ANN. ï¿½26.0 14). Violations may result in administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per
          day and civil and criminal penalties (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.136, ï¿½26.122, ï¿½26.2121).





          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-23                          August 1996








Aaencv's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfv TCMP Policv

Wastewater Discharge Permit and Permit for a New Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation Located One Mile or Less From a Critical Area or Coastal Waters. After a
public hearing, notice of which shall be given to the permittee, the commission may require the
permittee to conform to new or additional conditions (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.029).
















































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-24                       August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 7:  NONPOINT-SOURCE (NPS) WATER POLLUTION

State Aaencv Action and Managed Uses

TSSWCB Regulations Governing Nonpoint-Source Pollution
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2051(c))

Agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint-source pollution.

TNRCC - Regulations Governing Nonpoint-Source Pollution
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2051(b)(2-3))

On-site sewage disposal systems and underground storage tanks (USTs).

Policies

  1.   State agencies and subdivisions with authority to manage NPS pollution shall cooperate
       in the development and implementation of a coordinated program to reduce NPS
       pollution in order to restore and protect coastal waters.

 2.   In an area that the TSSWCB identifies as having or having the potential to develop
       agricultural or silvicultural NPS water quality problems or an area within the coastal
       zone, the TSSWCB shall establish a water quality management plan certification program
       that provides, through the local soil and water conservation district, for the development,
       supervision, and monitoring of voluntary individual water quality management plans for
       agricultural and silvicultural lands. Each plan must be developed, maintained, and
       implemented under rules and criteria adopted by the TSSWCB and discharges under such
       a plan may not cause a violation of state water quality standards established by the
       TNRCC. The TSSWCB's rules shall certify a plan that satisfies the TSSWCB rules and
       criteria and discharges which do not cause a violation of state water quality standards
       established by the TNRCC. This policy is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, to
       require the TSSWCB to establish non-voluntary requirements for the development,
       maintenance, or implementation of individual water quality management plans.

 3.   TNRCC rules under Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 366, governing on-site
       sewage disposal systems, and TNRCC rules under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26,
       Subchapter I, governing underground storage tanks, shall require that on-site disposal
       systems and underground storage tanks be located, designed, operated, inspected, and
       maintained so as to prevent releases of pollutants that may adversely affect coastal
       waters.

 4.   This policy shall not be interpreted or applied so as to require that either a National
       Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges
       issued under the Clean Water Act, ï¿½402(p), or an NPDES permit for a concentrated
       animal feeding operation, requiring no discharge up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour
       frequency storm, provide additional NPS pollution control measures in addition to those
       required in the permit.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-25                           August 1996







Management Authoritv and Administration

The TSSWCB, under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, and Agriculture Code, Chapter 201, is the
lead authority regarding activity for abating agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint source
pollution. Chapter 201 of the Agriculture Code sets out specific responsibilities of the
TSSWCB. Under this authority, the agency administers the state's soil and water conservation
program and coordinates programs of and provides technical assistance to the soil and water
conservation districts. Programs to manage agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint source
pollution are carried out through two coordinated mechanism: the "Agricultural/Silvicultural
Nonpoint Source Management Program" administered pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act,
and a voluntary water quality management plan development program for private lands through
soil and water conservation districts authorized in Section 201.026 of the Agriculture Code. The
TSSWCB also administers a complaint resolution process for agricultural and silvicultural
nonpoint source pollution as well as a cost share program in priority area as determined by the
State Board. Cost share funds are used to assist producers in implementing certain practices
included in water quality management plans.

Under Chapter 366 of the Texas Health and Safety Code and 30 TAC Chapter 285, the TNRCC
has the authority to promulgate rules and regulate on-site sewage disposal systems. This
authority will be exercised in compliance with policies in this category (31 TAC ï¿½501.14(g)(3)).
Title 30 TAC Chapter 285 establishes the agency's policy that individual on-site sewage
treatment facilities must be designed, constructed, and operated to provide adequate sewage
treatment and disposal that will not contaminate potable water supplies, threaten the health and
welfare of the public, result in a hazard to the state's recreational areas, or result in pollution of
groundwater or surface water.

The primary purpose of these regulations is to establish minimally acceptable standards for the
construction of on-site sewerage facilities for individual homes, small businesses, recreational
areas, institutions, and other activities that do not have access to a central collection system. On-
site surface irrigation with treated wastewater is allowed in accordance with TNRCC policy.
Dischargers that have any open point discharges to the surface must receive a permit from the
TNRCC under 30 TAC Chapter 317. For on-site disposal systems with single or collective daily
flows exceeding 5,000 gallons per day, the TNRCC must determine the necessity for a waste
discharge permit.

Permitting for on-site sewerage facilities involves standards and criteria established for all
aspects of design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of a facility for
residential development, including single dwellings, mobile home parks, subdivisions, and multi-
use developments served by a central sewerage system. Design standards for systems consider
topography, soil characteristics, groundwater, flooding, geology, spacing between property lines
and other utilities, and clearance from structures and surface improvements. Percolation test
procedures are outlined, along with guidelines for construction, operation, and maintenance.

Construction and use of systems not in accordance with these regulations constitute a violation.
The rules specifically prohibit cesspools, bore holes or injection wells for domestic sewage
disposal, and seepage pits for on-site disposal systems because they tend to create nuisances and


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-26                           August 1996







           other conditions prejudicial to the public health. In addition, 30 TAC ï¿½285.109 sets out penalties
           under this authority, which are described below.

           The TNRCC administers the regulation of underground storage tanks (USTs) under the authority
           of Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, Subchapter I, and 30 TAG Chapter 334. The purpose of the
           regulations is to provide a comprehensive regulatory program for UST systems storing hazardous
           substances and petroleum substances. The TNRCC will administer these regulations in
           compliance with the policy in 31 TAG ï¿½501.14(g)(3).

           The rules establish minimum standards and procedures to protect human health and safety and to
           protect and maintain the quality of the state's groundwater and surface water resources against
           environmental contamination that could result from releases of harmful substances stored in such
           tanks. The requirements and provisions apply to registration, design, construction, installation,
           operation, testing, maintenance, upgrading, record keeping and reporting, removal from service,
           release monitoring, reporting and corrective action, and other aspects of UST systems.

           Technical standards apply to new and existing systems to ensure that their design, installation,
           and operation will prevent releases due to structural failure or corrosion. The standards provide
           for spill and overfill prevention, release detection, and approved secondary containment systems
           for al existing hazardous substance UST systems.

           If an investigation, review, or inspection by the TNRCC does not sufficiently demonstrate that
           the installation, operation, maintenance, corrective action, or any other activity related to a UST
           system is in accordance with the applicable regulations, the TNRCC is authorized to take
           enforcement action. The TNRCC may require additional documentation to demonstrate
           compliance, require additional activities to achieve compliance, and initiate formal enforcement
           action and seek administrative penalties as prescribed in 30 TAC Chapter 337 and Texas Water
           Code ï¿½26.019.

           Under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 366 and 30 TAG Chapter 285, the TNRCC has the
           authority to promulgate rules and regulate on-site sewage disposal systems. This authority will
           be exercised in compliance with the policies in this category. Title 30 TAG Chapter 285
           establishes the agency's policy that individual on-site sewage treatment facilities must be
           designed, constructed, and operated to provide adequate sewage treatment and disposal that will
          not contaminate potable water supplies, threaten the health and welfare of the public, result in a
          hazard to the state's recreational areas, or result in pollution of groundwater or surface water.

          The primary purpose of these regulations is to establish minimally acceptable standards for
          constructing on-site sewerage facilities for individual homes, small businesses, recreational
          areas, institutions, and other activities that do not have access to a central collection system. On-
           site surface irrigation of treated wastewater is allowed in accordance with agency policy.
          Dischargers must obtain a permit from the TNRCC under 30 TAG Chapter 317 for any open
          point discharges to the surface. For on-site disposal systems with single or collective daily flows
          of over 5,000 gallons per day, the TNRCC must determine the necessity for a waste discharge
.        ~~~permit.



          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-27                          August 1996







Permitting for on-site sewerage facilities involves standards and criteria established for all
aspects of design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of a facility for
commercial development. Design standards for systems consider topography, soil                            0
characteristics, groundwater, flooding, geology, spacing between property lines and other
utilities, and clearance from structures and surface improvements. Percolation test procedures
are outlined, along with guidelines for construction, operation, and maintenance.

Construction and use of systems not in accordance with these regulations constitute a violation.
The rules specifically prohibit cesspools, bore holes, or injection wells for domestic sewage
disposal and seepage pits for on-site disposal systems because they tend to create nuisances and
other conditions prejudicial to the public health. In addition, 30 TAC ï¿½285.109 sets out penalties
under this authority.

State agencies with authority to manage various sources of nonpoint pollution that affect coastal
waters include the TSSWCB, TNRCC, GLO, TxDOT, and TPWD. These agencies must work
together, in accordance with the policy in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(g)(1), described above, along with
the interested public, to reduce NPS pollution to restore and protect coastal waters.

The TSSWCB, under Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, is the lead authority regarding
strategies for abating agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint-source pollution. The TSSWCB is
required to determine those areas of the state that either have agricultural nonpoint-source
problems or have a potential for such problems and to establish a water quality management plan
certification program for these areas. Texas Agriculture Code, Chapter 201, also sets out specific
responsibilities of the TSSWCB. Under this authority, the agency administers the state's soil and
water conservation program and coordinates and provides technical assistance to soil and water
conservation districts. Programs to manage agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint-source
pollution are carried out through the "Agricultural/Silvicultural Nonpoint-Source Program for
Texas" and a voluntary water quality management plan development program for private lands
through soil and water conservation districts. The TSSWCB also manages a cost-share program
and the Clean Water Act ï¿½319 program for agriculture to assist landowners in implementing
management measures.

The GLO is responsible for the siting, design, and construction of marinas on state land and
approval of erosion response methods and has the authority to require best management practices
to prevent nonpoint-source pollution resulting from these activities.

The GLO is also responsible for cooperating with the TPWD, TNRCC, and other agencies in the
development of the State-Owned Coastal Wetland Management Plan, which will address
nonpoint-source pollution affecting coastal wetlands (see Chapter Six).









Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-28                          August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 8: DEVELOPMENT IN CRITICAL AREAS

State Agencv Action and Managed Uses

RRC - Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(c)(3))

Dredging and filling activities associated with oil and gas exploration, production, or pipeline
construction that require a federal Clean Water Act ï¿½404 permit.

TNRCC - Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053()(6))

Dredging and filling operations that require a federal Clean Water Act ï¿½404 permit.

SLB - Mineral Lease Plan of Operations
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(1))

Oil and gas and mineral leases including drilling activities, alterations to the natural landscape,
surface and bottom-hole location of the initial well, location of additional planned wells and
production facilities, location of shipping fairways and anchorage areas, anticipated routes for
pipelines, and location of routes of dredging required for all production-related activities, such as
pipelines, well-drilling, and construction of facilities.

GLO - Geophysical or Geochemical Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(2))

Geophysical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using magnetic, gravity, seismic, and/or electrical techniques.
Geochemical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using techniques involving soil sampling and analysis (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.321 and ï¿½53.161).

GLO - Miscellaneous Easement (ME)
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(4))

MEs are required for construction and placement of telephone, telegraph, electric transmission,
and power lines; oil pipelines; gas pipelines and sulphur pipelines; other electric lines and
pipelines of any nature; irrigation canals, laterals, and water pipelines; roads; and any other
purpose the commissioner considers to be in the best interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291). MEs are also required for electric substations, pumping stations, loading
racks, and tank farms on state land other than land owned by the University of Texas System
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.292).





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Pait II 4-29                          August 1996







GLO - Surface Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(6)) i

Unsold public school land and asylum land may be leased for agricultural, grazing, or
commercial purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.121).

SLB - Structure Registration
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(7))

Construction of piers by littoral property owners for noncommercial use if pier is 100 feet or less
in length and 25 feet or less in width, and requires no filling or dredging (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115).

SLB - Coastal Easement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(3))

Dredging of basins and channels on state-owned submerged land; construction of piers, docks,
marinas, bulkheads, seawalls, and other waterfront structures on state-owned submerged land.
The School Land Board may also grant easement rights to the owner of adjacent littoral property
authorizing the placement or location of a structure on coastal public land for purposes connected
with the ownership of littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

SLB - Coastal Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(5)) 

Coastal public land may be leased to: (1) the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) or to
any eligible city or county for public recreational purposes; (2) the TPWD for management of
estuarine preserves; (3) any nonprofit, tax-exempt environmental organization approved by the
School Land Board for the purpose of managing a wildlife refuge; and (4) any scientific or
educational organization or institution for conducting scientific research (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105 and ï¿½33.109).

SLB - Cabin Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(8))

Permitting of limited continued use of previously unauthorized structures on coastal public land
if the use is sought by one who is claiming an interest in the structure but is not incident to the
ownership of the littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.119). Previously
unauthorized structures for which permits are obtained may be used only for noncommercial,
recreational purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.128).

SLB - Navigation District Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(9))

The School Land Board may lease state-owned land to eligible navigation districts only for
purposes reasonably related to the promotion of navigation. Navigation includes marine
commerce and immediately related activities, including but not limited to port development;

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-30                         August 1996







channel construction and maintenance; industrial site locations, transportation, shipping and
storage facilities; pollution abatement facilities; and all other activities necessary or appropriate
 tothe promotion of marine commerce. In applying for leases, districts which will require
dredging, filling, or bulkheading must provide, among other requirements, a draft environmental
impact statement assessing the effect of the proposed use on the environment, which statement
shall generally conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
district must also provide proof satisfactory to the board establishing the public convenience and
necessity for acquisition of lands sought to be leased (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

GLO - Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(11))

The GLO, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (Mitigation
Bank Review Team), approves parcels of real property proposed for a mitigation bank (TEX.
REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 542 1(u) and Interagency Guidelines for Development and Use of
Mitigation Banks, GLO et al., 6-93)).

Policies

The TNRCC and the RRC shall comply with the policies in this category when issuing
certifications and adopting rules under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, and the Texas Natural
Resources Code, Chapter 91, governing certification of compliance with surface water quality
standards for federal actions and permits authorizing development affecting critical areas;
provided that activities exempted from the requirement for a permit for the discharge of dredged
or fill material, described in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, ï¿½323.4 and/or Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, ï¿½232.3, including but not limited to normal farming, silviculture,
and ranching activities, such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for
the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation
practices, shall not be considered activities for which a certification is required.

The GLO and the SLB shall comply with the policies in this category when approving oil, gas, or
other mineral lease plans of operations or granting surface leases, easements, and permits and
adopting rules under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 32, 33 and 5 1-53, and Texas
Water Code, Chapter 61, governing development affecting critical areas on state submerged
lands and private submerged lands, and when issuing approvals and adopting rules under Texas
Civil Statutes, article 5421u, for mitigation banks operated by subdivisions of the state.

  I1.   Dredging and construction of structures in, or the discharge of dredged or fill material
       into, critical areas shall comply with the policies in this category. In implementing this
       policy, cumulative and secondary adverse effects of these activities will be considered.

       A.     These policies shall be applied in a manner consistent with the goal of achieving
              no net loss of critical area functions and values.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-31                          August 1996







       B.     Persons proposing development in critical areas shall demonstrate that no
               practicable alternative with fewer adverse effects is available.

               i.     The person proposing the activity shall demonstrate that the activity is
                       water-dependent. If the activity is not water-dependent, practicable
                       alternatives are presumed to exist, unless the person clearly demonstrates
                       otherwise.

               ii.    The analysis of alternatives shall be conducted in light of the activity's
                       overall purpose.

               iii.    Alternatives may include different operation or maintenance techniques or
                       practices or a different location, design, configuration, or size."

       C.     In evaluating practicable alternatives, the following sequence shall be applied:

               i. Adverse effects on critical areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent
                      practicable.

               ii.    Unavoidable adverse effects shall be minimized to the greatest extent
                      practicable by limiting the degree or magnitude of the activity and its
                      implementation.

               iii.    Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation shall be required to
                      the greatest extent practicable for all adverse effects that cannot be avoided
                       or minimized.

       D.     Compensatory mitigation includes restoring adversely affected critical areas or
               replacing adversely affected critical areas by creating new critical areas.
               Compensatory mitigation should be undertaken, when practicable, in areas
               adjacent or contiguous to the affected critical areas (on-site). If on-site
               compensatory mitigation is not practicable, compensatory mitigation should be
               undertaken in close physical proximity to the affected critical areas if practicable
               and in the same watershed if possible (off-site). Compensatory mitigation should
               also attempt to replace affected critical areas with critical areas with
               characteristics identical to or closely approximating those of the affected critical
               areas (in-kind). The preferred order of compensatory mitigation is:

               i.     on-site, in-kind;

               ii.    off-site, in-kind;

               iii.    on-site, out-of-kind; and

               iv.    off-site, out-of-kind.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-32                           August 1996







                E.     Mitigation banking is acceptable compensatory mitigation if use of the mitigation
                       bank has been approved by the agency authorizing the development and
                       mitigation credits are available for withdrawal. Preservation through acquisition
                       for public ownership of unique critical areas or other ecologically important areas
                       may be acceptable compensatory mitigation in exceptional circumstances.
                       Examples of this include areas of high priority for preservation or restoration,
                       areas whose functions and values are difficult to replicate, or areas not adequately
                       protected by regulatory programs. Acquisition will normally be allowed only in
                       conjunction with preferred forms of compensatory mitigation.

               F.     In determining compensatory mitigation requirements, the impaired functions and
                       values of the affected critical area shall be replaced on a one-to-one ratio.
                       Replacement of functions and values on a one-to-one ratio may require restoration
                       or replacement of the physical area affected on a ratio higher than one-to-one.
                       W~hile no net loss of critical area functions and values is the goal, it is not required
                       in individual cases where mitigation is not practicable or would result in only
                       inconsequential environmental benefits. It is also important to recognize that there
                       are circumstances where the adverse effects of the activity are so significant that,
                       even if alternatives are not available, the activity may not be permitted regardless
                       of the compensatory mitigation proposed.

               G.     Development in critical areas shall not be authorized if significant degradation of
                       critical areas will occur. Significant degradation occurs if:

0                    ~~~~~~~i.  the activity will jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as
                              endangered or threatened, or will result in likelihood of the destruction or
                              adverse modification of a habitat determined to be a critical habitat under
                              the Endangered Species Act, 16 United States Code Annotated,
                              ï¿½ï¿½1531-1544;

                       ii.    the activity will cause or contribute, after consideration of dilution and
                              dispersion, to violation of any applicable surface water quality standards
                              established under Policy Category 6;

                       ii.    the activity violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition
                              established under Policy Category 6;

                       iv.    the activity violates any requirement imposed to protect a marine
                              sanctuary designated under the Marine Protection, Research, and
                              Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 United States Code Annotated, Chapter 27; or

                       V.     taking into account the nature and degree of all identifiable adverse
                              effects, including their persistence, permanence, areal extent, and the
                              degree to which these effects will have been mitigated pursuant to
                              subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, the activity will, individually

                              or collectively, cause or contribute to significant adverse effects on:

       Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-33                         August 1996







                      I.     human health and welfare, including effects on water supplies,
                              plankton, benthos, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and consumption of fish
                              and wildlife;                                                             O

                      II.    the life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
                              aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration, or spread
                              of pollutants or their byproducts beyond the site, or their
                              introduction into an ecosystem, through biological, physical, or
                              chemical processes;

                      Ill.   ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, including loss of
                              fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a coastal wetland
                              to assimilate nutrients, purify water, or reduce wave energy; or

                      IV.    generally accepted recreational, aesthetic or economic values of the
                              critical area which are of exceptional character and importance.

 2.   Agencies required to comply with this policy will coordinate with one another and with
       federal agencies when evaluating alternatives, determining appropriate and practicable
       mitigation, and assessing significant degradation. Those agencies' rules governing
       authorizations for development in critical areas shall require a demonstration that the
       requirements of paragraph (1)(A)-(G) of this policy have been satisfied.

  3.   For any dredging or construction of structures in, or discharge of dredged or fill material
       into, critical areas that is subject to the requirements of ï¿½501.15 of this title (relating to
       Policy for Major Actions), data and information on the cumulative and secondary adverse
       affects of the project need not be produced or evaluated to comply with this policy if such
       data and information is produced and evaluated in compliance with ï¿½501.15(b)-(c) of this
       title (relating to Policy for Major Actions).

Explanation

The TCMP policies for Development in Critical Areas (31 TAC ï¿½501.14(h)) contain the primary
standards for the evaluation of proposed development in or on coastal wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, tidal sand or mud flats, oyster reefs, and hard substrate reefs. The policy is a
restatement, in simplified terms, of the standards already being used by the two federal agencies
with direct permitting responsibilities over these areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These standards are called the ï¿½404(b)(1)
Guidelines. By adopting them as the standard for the State of Texas to apply to development in
or on coastal wetlands and other critical areas, the Council intends to get all state and federal
agencies on the "same page" and thereby reduce interagency conflicts over coastal wetlands.

The basic goal of the policies is no net loss of critical area functions and values. Functions are
the physical processes and manifestations of processes that occur in critical areas; for example,
the way in which coastal wetlands retain floodwaters after it rains. Value means the benefits that
coastal communities actually realize from these functions. Using the previous example, coastal


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-34                          August 1996






            wetlands have value in reducing the loss of life and damage to property from floods by retaining

is ~~~floodwaters after a heavy rain.

            Least Dama~yinc2 Alternative

            An activity subject to the critical areas policy must meet two basic requirements to be consistent
            with the TCMP. First, the person or entity proposing the project must demonstrate that no
            practicable alternatives with fewer adverse effects are available. To determine whether this basic
            requirement is met, it must initially be determined whether the project is water-dependent.
            Unless the applicant clearly demonstrates otherwise, a project that is not water-dependent is
            presumed to have practicable alternatives that would be less damaging to the critical area. In
            other words, an applicant seeking authorization for a non-water-dependent project must make a
            convincing case that it is not feasible to locate the project outside a critical area.

            A project is water-dependent only if it requires direct access or proximity to coastal waters to
            fulfill the project purpose. Water dependency is determined by looking at the basic purpose of
            the project. For example, the basic purpose of a hotel is shelter. The basic purpose of a
            restaurant is to serve food. A typical hotel or restaurant can serve these functions without access
            to water. Facilities that are water-dependent include public beach use and access facilities, boat
            slips, docks, breakwaters,'marinas, wharves and other vessel loading or off-loading facilities,
            utility easements, boat ramps, navigation channels and basins, bridges and bridge approaches,
            revetments, shoreline protection structures, culverts, groins, saltwater barriers, navigational aids,
            mooring pilings, simple access channels, fish processing plants, boat construction and repair
            facilities, offshore pipelines, and constructed wetlands below mean high water. Activities that
*         ~~~are water-dependent include marine recreation (fishing, swimming, boating, wildlife viewing),
            industrial uses dependent on marine transportation or requiring large volumes of water that
            cannot be obtained at inland sites, mariculture, exploration for and production of oil and gas
            under coastal waters or submerged lands, and certain meteorological and oceanographic
            activities.

            Once it is determined whether alternatives to the project are presumed to exist, the focus shifts to
           the project's actual impacts. The second step is for the applicant to demonstrate that the project,
            as proposed, is the least environmentally damaging alternative. It meets this criterion only if all
            appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to avoid and minimize, to the greatest extent
           practicable, adverse effects on critical areas. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
           mitigation will be required for unavoidable adverse effects. Unavoidable adverse effects are
           those effects from an activity that cannot be avoided or minimized.

           Compensatory mitigation is not considered avoidance of adverse effects. Rather, avoidance of
           adverse effects is preferred over minimization, and minimization of adverse effects is preferred
           over compensation for them. Compensatory mitigation can include restoration of degraded
           areas, creation of new critical areas, or preservation of critical areas. Cumulative and secondary
           adverse effects of a proposed project are considered as well as primary adverse effects.





           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-35                         August 1996







Significant Degradation

The second basic requirement of the critical areas policy is that a project may not be authorized if
it causes significant degradation of critical areas. There are some circumstances where the
adverse effects of a project would be so significant that, even if alternatives are not available, the
project may not be permitted regardless of the compensatory mitigation proposed. The critical
areas policy anticipates those circumstances and defines them as cases of "significant
degradation." As defined in the critical areas policy, significant degradation occurs if the project:

   ï¿½   causes or contributes to violation of applicable state water quality or effluent standards
       under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act or Title 30, Texas Administrative Code,
       Chapter 307;

   ï¿½  jeopardizes the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or
       their critical habitat;

   *   violates requirements of any federally designated marine sanctuary; or

   *   causes or contributes to significant adverse effects on human health, on life stages of
       organisms dependent on the aquatic ecosystem, on ecosystem diversity, productivity, and
       stability, or on recreational, aesthetic and economic values.

Comnensatorv Mitieation

Where significant degradation is not likely, whether a project can be authorized hinges frequently
on whether compensatory mitigation is practicable. Compensatory mitigation involves
replacement of critical area functions and values at a ratio of one-to-one. Functions and values
may include fish and wildlife habitat, storage and purification of runoff, lost recreational
opportunities, and others. Compensatory mitigation measures include revegetation of disturbed
areas, recontouring of land, replacement of oyster reefs, and habitat creation in the form of
scrapedown and/or planting and restoration. Although the state's goal is no net loss of functions
and values, this result is not required in individual cases where mitigation is not practicable or
where it would result in only inconsequential environmental benefits.

Specific mitigation requirements for unavoidable adverse effects will be determined according to
the following preferred order.

   * on-site (adjacent or contiguous to the affected area), in-kind (restoring or replacing the
       damaged critical area with critical areas having identical or similar characteristics);

   *   off-site (generally in the same geographic area, such as the same watershed or ecoregion),
       in-kind;

   *   on-site, out-of-kind; and

   ï¿½   off-site, out-of-kind.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-36                            August 1996







           Preservation of unique critical areas or other ecologically important areas through acquisition for
           public ownership may be acceptable compensatory mitigation in exceptional circumstances. In
0       ~     ~~determining whether acquisition is appropriate, consideration must be given to whether the area
           is of high priority for preservation in the region where it is located, whether the functions and
           values of the area are difficult to replicate, or whether the area is already adequately protected by
           regulatory programs.

           Mitioation Bankin2y

           Under the TCMP, mitigation banking is acceptable compensatory mitigation if use of the bank
           has been approved by the agency authorizing the development activity and if mitigation credits
           are available for withdrawal. A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands and/or other aquatic
           resources are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly
           for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar
           resources.

           On the Texas coast, an interagency group of federal and state regulatory and resource agencies
           called the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) oversees the establishment, use, and operation
           of mitigation banks. The MBRT is coordinated by the Galveston District of the Corps. Its
           primary role is to facilitate the establishment of effective, reliable mitigation banks.

           Interagency guidelines for the development and use of mitigation banks in the Corps Galveston
           District were prepared in 1993 by state and federal resource involved in the MBRT. These
           general guidelines were designed to assist potential bankers in developing acceptable mitigation
           bank proposals. They required each bank to be created by a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
           as documentation of agency concurrence on the objectives and administration of the bank.

           The MOA describes in detail the physical and legal characteristics of the bank, and how the bank
           will be established and operated. The MOA is signed by the bank sponsor and agencies
           represented on the MBRT. The guidelines include a definition section, prerequisites for approval
           of mitigation bank MOAs, mitigation bank criteria and procedures during the early consultation
           process, bank location, evaluation of functions and values, components of a site plan, transfer of
           credits, and bank time limits. These guidelines have been superseded by national guidelines
           adopted by Corps, EPA, USFWS, NMFS, and USDA on November 20, 1995. However, the
           national guidelines are similar in nature to the 1993 MBRT guidelines.


           Management Authoritv and Administration

           Section 401 Water-Quality Certification

           The chief state authority for regulation of coastal wetlands is water-quality certification under
           ï¿½401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This process essentially allows the state to determine
           whether federal permits for discharges into the surface waters of the state will be granted, denied,
           or conditionally granted. Section 401 certification authority covers all Corps permits under ï¿½404
           of the CWA, permits or licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and
           NPDES permits under ï¿½402 of the CWA. Section 401 certifications are also required for

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-37                         August 1996







activities requiring Corps ï¿½ï¿½9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act if the activity may lead to a
discharge.

Section 401 Certification in Texas

Wetlands are already included in the definition of "waters in the state" (30 TAC ï¿½307.3(a)(45)),
and current Surface Water Quality Standards (SWQS) apply to wetlands. In Texas, surface water
quality standards are established by the TNRCC and are contained in Chapter 307 of the
TNRCC's permanent rules. When combined with the TCMP federal and state consistency
review processes, ï¿½401 certification will provide comprehensive protection from activities in or
near coastal wetlands. This approach not only strengthens the state role in wetland protection,
but also reduces duplication of effort and coordinates permit review for applicants. Certification
of discharges of dredged or fill materials or construction of structures will be evaluated by
application of the elements of the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines based on the antidegradation policy in
31 TAC Chapter 307.

Responsibility and authority for issuing ï¿½401 certifications in Texas is shared by the TNRCC and
RRC. The TNRCC issues ï¿½401 certifications for all activities except those related to oil and gas
exploration and production. The RRC is responsible for the prevention and abatement of
pollution of surface waters associated with oil and gas exploration, development, and production
operations (E&P operations), including pipeline transportation of crude oil and natural gas.
Thus, the RRC is the ï¿½401 certifying agency for issuance of federal permits associated with oil
and gas E&P operations. In particular, the RRC is the ï¿½401 certifying agency for any Corps
permit required:

   ï¿½ to dredge an access channel in order to conduct drilling or production operations in a
       critical area;

   *   in connection with construction of a drilling pad or installation of a production platform
       in a critical area; or

   *   in connection with construction, operation, or maintenance of a crude oil or natural gas
       pipeline facility in a critical area.

The TNRCC's and RRC's respective authorities and programs for issuing ï¿½401 certifications are
the state's primary existing wetlands regulatory authorities. They constitute the component of the
TCMP for managing land and water uses that impact coastal wetlands and other critical areas.
For purposes of the TCMP, therefore, the most important of the permits subject to TNRCC or
RRC certification are those for discharges of dredged and fill material under ï¿½404 of the CWA
and under ï¿½9 and ï¿½ 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for those activities in navigable waters that
may lead to a discharge. These authorizations are issued by the Corps and include individual
permits, general permits, and letters of permission.

TNRCC Process

For some time, provisions of TNRCC rules applicable to ï¿½401 certification of activities affecting
wetlands have included the following:

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part H 4-38                            August 1996







   * The requirement to conduct a site-specific assessment of uses and standards in response
        to administrative or regulatory actions by the TNRCC.

   *   The primary level of antidegradation protection, which states that existing uses will be
       maintained.

   *   Narrative criteria for aesthetic, radiological, toxic, nutrient, and salinity parameters.

   ï¿½   Numerical limitations on thermal elevations above ambient conditions.

   *   Numerical limitations on fecal coliform bacteria to levels which are considered
       appropriate for contact recreation.

   *   Acute toxic criteria to protect aquatic life.

   *   The additional level of protection provided by the antidegradation policy to waters which
       exceed "fishable/swimmable" quality. This provision of the antidegradation policy would
       prohibit any activity that would cause degradation of wetlands unless the activity were
       demonstrated to be socially and economically justified, even if no violations of narrative
       or numerical standards criteria were anticipated. For wastewater discharges, the
       antidegradation policy is already used to require an evaluation of alternatives,
       minimization of impacts, and economic justification if a proposed discharge is expected
       to cause degradation of high-quality waters. Application of this provision of the
       antidegradation policy is based on a case-by-case determination of the characteristics of
       the affected wetlands.

   ï¿½   Chronic numerical toxic criteria to protect aquatic life use. Chronic criteria to protect
       aquatic life uses will apply wherever aquatic life uses are attainable, including wetlands.

   - Numerical human health criteria to protect human consumption of fish. Human health
       criteria to protect sustainable fisheries, incidental fisheries, or drinking water supplies
       will apply wherever these uses are attainable, including wetlands.

Effective July 13, 1995, the TNRCC amended its ï¿½401 certification rules to incorporate the basic
components of the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines in a manner consistent with the TCMP critical areas
policy. Among other things, the rule now requires avoidance of, minimization of, and
compensation for water quality impacts, including the functions and values of wetlands. TNRCC
rules expressly affirm the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.

Chapter 279 of the TNRCC's rules contains both the procedures and criteria for the application,
processing and review of state water quality certifications. It provides for public notice, hearing,
and comment and requires the TNRCC to coordinate the certification of federal permits and
licenses with other state resource agencies.

For actions subject to water quality certification, the TNRCC's executive director will utilize, to
the greatest extent practicable, a joint mailed notice issued by Corps, the EPA, or other licensing
or permit agency after agreements with those agencies have been reached regarding the content

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-39                            August 1996







of the notice and the persons entitled to notice in Texas. Ifjoint notice is not used, the TNRCC
will publish notice, which will include mailings to, among others: MMW, USFWS, TWDB,
NMFS, EPA, GLO, and the chairman of the Coastal Coordination Council. The executive i
director will solicit comments and will consider all comments related to the impacts of the
proposed activity submitted in accordance with the rules.

The executive director of the TNRCC will conduct a public hearing on any application for
certification if the executive director determines that such a hearing would be appropriate or if
such a hearing is requested by any affected person in writing within 30 days after the publication
of notice of application. If a public hearing is held, notice will be provided by first class mail to
all parties receiving the initial notice of application. Following the hearing, the executive
director will consider al comments and determine if the proposed activity will result in any
violation of the federal CWA or the criteria in the agency's rules. The executive director may
grant, conditionally grant, waive, or deny certification. The final decision will be issued within
60 days from the date the draft permit is mailed, and will be provided to any person or entity
requesting notification.

RRC Process

R.RC rules (which will take effect when provisions for Council review of individual proposed
actions are implemented) base ï¿½401 certifications on consistency with the TCM1P policies. They
provide that notice of a request for ï¿½401 certification may be given through a joint notice issued
by the Corps or the applicant. The RRC has finalized a joint notice with the Corps. All requests
for ï¿½401 certification shall be noticed through the Corps.

The RRC will consider all comments on a request for ï¿½401 certification that are filed within 30
days of the date notice is given. The RRC may also hold a public meeting to receive comment if
it determines that such a meeting is in the public interest. The RRC may grant, conditionally
grant, deny, or waive certification. The RRC may waive certification in limited instances, such
as where the proposed activity does not fall within the RRC's jurisdiction or the permitting
activity involves renewal or amendment of a Corps permit and such renewal or amendment will
not authorize impacts to critical areas that materially exceed those authorized under the original
permit.

A person opposing issuance of a Corps permit will not be granted a hearing on a certification
decision made by the RRC. Gr-ant, conditional grant, or waiver of certification by the RRC will
not automatically result in issuance of the permit by the Corps. A grant or waiver of
certification, or a conditional certification that is accepted by the applicant, merely lifts a bar to
permit issuance. A protestant may have an opportunity to contest issuance of the permit in a
hearing conducted by the Corps.

Because denial of certification acts as a bar to permit issuance, a hearing will be held at the
applicant's request if certification is denied. If the RRC conditionally grants certification and the
applicant objects to any of the conditions, the applicant may request a hearing. If a hearing is
held on the certification action, the RRC's action can be appealed to district court by a party to
the proceeding. (See Texas Government Code, ï¿½2001.171.)


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-40                           August 1996







Other Authorities

Coastal public land means all or any portion of state-owned submerged land, the water overlying
that land, and all state-owned islands or portions of islands in the coastal zone. Submerged land
is any land extending from the boundary between the land of the state and the littoral owners
seaward to the low-water mark on any saltwater lake, bay, inlet, estuary, or inland water within
the tidewater limits, and any land lying beneath the body of water, but shall exclude beaches
bordering on the open Gulf of Mexico and the land lying beneath this water (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.004(6)(1 1)).

Oil and gas leases may be issued for islands, saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, and marshes owned by
the state within tidewater limits; rivers and channels owned by the state; the portion of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state; all unsold surveyed and unsurveyed public school
land; and all land sold with a reservation of minerals to the state under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½51.054 in which the state has retained leasing rights. A mineral lease plan of operations
is not currently a condition of the lease application process. Applications for mineral leases may
contain any information the commissioner requires (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.015).

Geophysical or geochemical permits are required for all exploration on public school land, which
includes all land dedicated to the permanent free school fund and specifically includes land with
a mineral classification in which the state has retained the oil and gas interest and areas within
tidewater limits (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.32 1). Except for a person who has a valid
oil and gas lease on public school land, a person may not conduct geophysical and geochemical
exploration without a permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

MEs are required for land and water uses described above for MEs across, through, and under
unsold public school land, the portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state,
the state-owned riverbeds and beds of navigable streams in the public domain, and all islands,
saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, marshes, and reefs owned by the state within tidewater limits (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291).

Registration requirements apply only to piers of the dimensions described above for structure
registrations.

Permits are required for the land uses described above for cabin permits. Permits may not be
granted for continued use of a structure located within 1000 feet of: (1) privately owned littoral
property, without written consent of the littoral owner; (2) any federal or state wildlife sanctuary
or refuge; or (3) any federal, state, county, or city park bordering on coastal public land (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½31.124).

Any state agency and all political subdivisions are authorized to establish mitigation banks,
subject to GLO approval (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 542 1(u)).

Exemptions

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. Excepted
from this provision are activities exempted from the requirement for a permit for the discharge of

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-41                          August 1996







dredged or fill material, described in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, ï¿½323.4 and/or Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 40, ï¿½232.3, including but not limited to normal fanning,
silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and
harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water
conservation practices. A ï¿½401 water quality certification is not required for these activities.

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. Mineral lease plans of operations are not currently a
condition for obtaining a mineral lease from the GLO/SLB.

Geophysical of Geochemical Permit. Holders of valid oil and gas leases are not required to
have a geophysical or geochemical permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

Miscellaneous Easement, Surface Lease, Coastal Lease, and Navigation District Lease.
None.

Coastal Easement, and Structure Registration. Piers over the size specified for structure
registrations are subject to the requirement of a coastal easement as specified in (TEX. NAT.
RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

Cabin Permit. No cabin permit may be required for structures, excavations, or other similar
structures as long as they are located wholly on the private littoral upland, even though the
activities may result in the area being inundated by public water (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½33.122).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based upon a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the MOA's compliance with
national guidelines adopted in November 1995.

Variances

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fil Material. The RRC
may waive the requirement for water quality certification (16 TAC ï¿½3.93).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
TNRCC may waive the requirement for water quality certification (30 TAC ï¿½279.4).

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations, Geophysical or Geochemical Permit, Miscellaneous
Easement, Surface Lease, and Cabin Permit. None.

Structure Registration. All uses described for structure registrations must be registered with
the School Land Board (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115). There is no statutory
provision for a variance from this requirement.

Coastal Easement. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal easement
requirement.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-42                         August 1996







Coastal Lease. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal lease requirement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105).

Navigation District Lease. There is no statutory provision expressly granting variance
authority.

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based on a proposed MOA.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. Members
and employees of the RRC, on proper identification, may enter public or private property to
inspect and investigate conditions relating to the quality of water in the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½91.1012). Violations may subject a person to administrative penalties of up to
$10,000 per day for each violation as well as criminal penalties (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½81.0531 and ï¿½91.002).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
members of the TNRCC and their agents are entitled to enter any public or private property at
any reasonable time for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the
water quality of the state (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.014). Violations may subject a
person to administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each violation as well as civil and
criminal penalties (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.136, ï¿½26.122, and ï¿½26.2121).

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. None.

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. A violation of the conditions or provisions of the
geophysical or geochemical permit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100
nor more than $1000 per day. (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.325). All operations are
subject to inspection and monitoring by the land commissioner or the commissioner's
representatives at any time. Within 30 days of the expiration of the permit, the permittee must
file with the commissioner a sworn "summary of activities" report (31 TAC ï¿½9.4(f)).

Miscellaneous Easement. Existing MEs must be renewed periodically. Easements may be
granted for a term of years. The commissioner may set a perpetual term if it is deemed to be in
the best interest of the state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ï¿½51.296). No person may undertake the
activities described above for MEs on state-owned land without an easement from the
commissioner or the board. A person without an easement is subject to a penalty of not more
than $1,000 per day, the removal of the structure, or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Surface Lease. Failure to obtain a lease prior to engaging in the actions listed above for surface
leases subjects the actor to a fine of no more than $1,000 per day, removal of the structure, and/or
filing of a lien on the structure (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302). Civil penalties of not
more than $200 per day per structure on coastal public lands may be assessed (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-43                           August 1996







Structure Registration. Any owner of littoral property who fails to register with the School
Land Board the location and dimensions of the pier to be constructed according to the
specifications described for structure registrations is subject to a civil penalty of no more than
$200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.116).

Coastal Easement. Any construction or placement of a structure on coastal public land without
first obtaining a coastal easement from the General Land Office is subject to a civil penalty of
not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can also result in
penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure, or the filing
of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Coastal Lease. Engaging in regulated activities without a coastal lease will subject the actor to a
civil penalty of not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can
also result in penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure,
or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Cabin Permit. Failure to obtain a cabin permit is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50
nor more than $1,000 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.120).

Navigation District Lease. If lands leased from the state are used by the navigation district for
any purpose or use not approved by the School Land Board, the lease may be terminated and the
lands shall revert to the State of Texas (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT) must agree to appropriate assessment methods. Selection of the appropriate assessment
method will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Methods could include the Wetland
Evaluation Technique, Habitat Evaluation Procedures, or other methods determined appropriate
by the MBRT, including best professional judgement.

Arencv's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
Railroad Commission is required to adopt rules and issue permits as necessary to prevent
pollution of surface and subsurface water related to oil and gas exploration and production
activities (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½91.101).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. After a
public hearing, notice of which shall be given to the permittee, the TNRCC may require the
permittee to conform to new or additional conditions (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.029).

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. The Texas land commissioner may include in the lease any
provision the commissioner considers necessary for protection of the interests of the state (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.016(b)).

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. The commissioner may make rules relating to
geophysical or geochemical exploration, permits, or permittees the commissioner considers
appropriate (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.324 and ï¿½53.163).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-44                         August 1996







Miscellaneous Easement. The grant of a miscellaneous easement may contain any provisions
that the commissioner considers necessary to protect the interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.305).

Surface Lease. If an application for a surface lease is granted, the School Land Board shall
determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and considerations for the lease (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Structure Registration and Coastal Easement. None.

Coastal Lease. The SLB has the authority to determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and
consideration for a coastal lease (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Cabin Permit. The School Land Board may not grant an application for a cabin permit which
would violate the public policy of this state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.129).

Navigation District Lease. After submission of evidence, the School Land Board shall
authorize the issuance or denial of the proposed navigation district lease and shall determine any
other conditions necessary to best serve the interests of the general public (TEX. WATER CODE
ANN. ï¿½61.116).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The GLO must approve a mitigation bank
prior to the establishment and maintenance of such a bank (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art.
5421(u)).



























Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-45                           August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 9: CONSTRUCTION OF WATERFRONT FACILITIES AND
                            OTHER STRUCTURES ON SUBMERGED LANDS

State Acencv Action and Manaced Uses

SLB - Mineral Lease Plan of Operations
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(1))

Oil and gas and mineral leases including drilling activities, alterations to the natural landscape,
surface and bottom-hole location of the initial well, location of additional planned wells and
production facilities, location of shipping fairways and anchorage areas, anticipated routes for
pipelines, and location of routes of dredging required for all production-related activities, such as
pipelines, well-drilling, and construction of facilities.

GLO - Geophysical or Geochemical Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(2))

Geophysical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using magnetic, gravity, seismic, and/or electrical techniques.
Geochemical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using techniques involving soil sampling and analysis (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.321 and ï¿½53.161).

GLO - Miscellaneous Easement (ME)
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(4))

MEs are required for construction and placement of telephone, telegraph, electric transmission,
and power lines; oil pipelines; gas pipelines and sulphur pipelines; other electric lines and
pipelines of any nature; irrigation canals, laterals, and water pipelines; roads; and any other
purpose the commissioner considers to be in the best interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291). MEs are also required for electric substations, pumping stations, loading
racks, and tank farms on state land other than land owned by the University of Texas System
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.292).

GLO - Surface Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(6))

Unsold public school land and asylum land may be leased for agricultural, grazing, or
commercial purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.121).

GLO - Structure Registration
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(7))

Construction of piers by littoral property owners for noncommercial use if pier is 100 feet or less
in length and 25 feet or less in width, and requires no filling or dredging (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115).


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-46                          August 1996







              SLB - Coastal Easement
Is (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(3))

              Dredging of basins and channels on state-owned submerged land; construction of piers, docks,
              marinas, bulkheads, seawalls, and other waterfront structures on state-owned submerged land.
              The School Land Board may also grant easement rights to the owner of adjacent littoral property
              authorizing the placement or location of a structure on coastal public land for purposes connected
              with the ownership of littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

              SLB - Coastal Lease
              (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(5))

              Coastal public land may be leased to: (1) the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) or to
              any eligible city or county for public recreational purposes; (2) the TPWD for management of
              estuarine preserves; (3) any nonprofit, tax-exempt environmental organization approved by the
              School Land Board for the purpose of managing a wildlife refuge; and (4) any scientific or
              educational organization or institution for conducting scientific research (TEX. NAT. RES.
              CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105 and ï¿½33.109).

              SLB - Cabin Permit
              (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(8))

              Permitting of limited continued use of previously unauthorized structures on coastal public land
              if the use is sought by one who is claiming an interest in the structure but is not incident to the
              ownership of the littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.119). Previously
              unauthorized structures for which permits are obtained may be used only for noncommercial,
              recreational purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.128).

              SLB - Navigation District Lease
              (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(9))

              The School Land Board may lease state-owned land to eligible navigation districts only for
              purposes reasonably related to the promotion of navigation. Navigation includes marine
              commerce and immediately related activities, including but not limited to port development;
              channel construction and maintenance; industrial site locations, transportation, shipping and
              storage facilities; pollution abatement facilities; and all other activities necessary or appropriate
              to the promotion of marine commerce. In applying for leases, districts which will require
              dredging, filling, or bulkheading must provide, among other requirements, a draft environmental
              impact statement assessing the effect of the proposed use on the environment, which statement
              shall generally conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
              district must also provide proof satisfactory to the board establishing the public convenience and
              necessity for acquisition of lands sought to be leased (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

              GLO - Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank
is (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(11))

              The GLO, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection

              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-47                         August 1996







Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (Mitigation
Bank Review Team), approves parcels of real property proposed for a mitigation bank (TEX.0
REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 542 1 (u) and Interagency Guidelines for Development and Use of
Mitigation Banks, GLO et al., 6-93)).

Policies

The GLO and the SLB, in governing development on state submerged lands, shall comply with
the policies in this category when approving oil, gas, and other mineral lease plans of operations
and granting surface leases, easements, and permits and adopting rules under the Texas Natural
Resources Code, Chapters 32, 33 and 5 1-53, and Texas Water Code, Chapter 6 1.

  I1.   Development on submerged lands shall comply with the policies in this category.

       A.     Marinas shall be designed and, to the greatest extent practicable, sited so that tides
               and currents will aid in flushing of the site or renew its water regularly.

       B.     Marinas designed for anchorage of private vessels shall provide facilities for the
               collection of waste, refu~se, trash, and debris.

       C.     Marinas with the capacity for long-term anchorage of more than ten vessels shall
               provide pump-out facilities for marine toilets, or other such measures or facilities
               that provide an equal or better level of water quality protection.

       D.     Marinas, docks, piers, wharves and other structures shall be designed and, to the
               greatest extent practicable, sited to avoid and otherwise minimize adverse effects
               on critical areas from boat traffic to and from those structures.-

       E.     Construction of docks, piers, wharves, aind other structures shall be preferred
               instead of authorizing dredging of channels or basins or filling of submerged
               lands to provide access to coastal waters if such construction is practicable,
               environmentally preferable, and will not interfere with commercial navigation.

       F.     Piers, docks, wharves, bulkheads, jetties, groins, fishing cabins, and artificial reefs
              (including artificial reefs for compensatory mitigation) shall'be limited to the
              minimum necessary to serve the project purpose and shall be constructed in a
              manner that:

              i.     does not significantly interfere with public navigation;

              ii.    does not significantly interfere with the natural coastal processes which
                      supply sediments to shore areas or otherwise exacerbate erosion of shore
                      areas;

              iii.    avoids and otherwise minimizes shading of critical areas and other adverse
                      effects.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-48                          August 1996







               G.     Facilities shall be located at sites or designed and constructed to the greatest
                       extent practicable to avoid and otherwise minimize the potential for adverse
Is ~~~~~~~effects from:

                       1.     construction and maintenance or other development associated with the
                               facility;

                       ii.    direct release to coastal waters and critical areas of pollutants form oil or
                              hazardous substance spills or stormwater runoff; and

                       iii.    deposition of airborne pollutants in coastal waters and critical areas.

               H.     Where practicable, pipelines, transmission lines, cables, roads, causeways, and
                       bridges shall be located in existing rights-of-way or previously disturbed areas if
                       necessary to avoid or minimize adverse effects and if it does not result in
                       unreasonable risks to human health, safety, and welfare.

                   1. To the greatest extent practicable, construction of facilities shall occur at sites and
                       times selected to have the least adverse effects on recreational uses of CNRAs and
                       on spawning or nesting seasons or seasonal migrations of terrestrial and aquatic
                       wildlife.

               J.     Facilities shall be located at sites which avoid the impoundment and draining of
                       coastal wetlands. If impoundment or draining cannot be avoided, adverse effects
                       to the impounded or drained wetlands shall be mitigated in accordance with the
                       sequencing requirements of Policy Category 8. To the greatest extent practicable,
                       facilities shall be located at sites at which expansion will not result in
                       development in critical areas.

               K.     Where practicable, piers, docks, wharves, bulkcheads, jetties, groins, fishing
                       cabins, and artificial reefs shall be constructed with materials that will not cause
                       any adverse effects on coastal waters or critical areas.

               L.     Developed sites shall be returned as closely as practicable to pre-project
                       conditions upon completion or cessation of operations by the removal of facilities
                       and restoration of any significantly degraded areas, unless:

                       i.     the facilities can be used for public purposes or contribute to the
                              maintenance or enhancement of coastal water quality, critical areas,
                              beaches, submerged lands, or shore areas; or

                       11.    restoration activities would fur-ther degrade CNRAs.

               M.     Water-dependent uses and facilities shall receive preference over those uses and
                       facilities that are not water-dependent.


       Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-49                           August 1996







       N.     Nonstructural erosion response methods such as beach nourishment, sediment
               bypassing, nearshore sediment berms, and planting of vegetation shall be
               preferred instead of structural erosion response methods.
       0.    Major residential and recreational waterfront facilities shall to the greatest extent
               practicable accommodate public access to coastal waters and preserve the public's
               ability to enjoy the natural aesthetic values of coastal submerged lands.

       P.     Activities on submerged land shall avoid and otherwise minimize any significant
               interference with the public's use of and access to such lands.

       Q.     Erosion of Gulf beaches and coastal shore areas caused by construction or
               modification of jetties, breakwaters, groins, or shore stabilization projects shall be
               mitigated to the extent the costs of mitigation are reasonably proportionate to the
               benefits of mitigation. Factors that shall be considered in determining whether the
               costs of mitigation are reasonably proportionate to the cost of the construction or
               modification and benefits include, but are not limited to, environmental benefits,
               recreational benefits, flood or storm protection benefits, erosion prevention
               benefits, and economic development benefits.

  2.   To the extent applicable to the public beach, these policies are supplemental to any
       further restrictions or requirements relating to the beach access and use rights of the
       public.

Manazement Authoritv and Administration

The SLB, according to rules set out in 31 TAC Chapter 155, grants easements for the
construction of waterfront structures on state submerged land. The SLB must comply with the
TCMP policies in ï¿½501.14(I) by virtue of their inclusion in 31 TAC Ch. 16 when granting a
coastal easement and when adopting rules pursuant to the siting, design, and construction of
these structures.

The SLB reviews projects to ensure conformity with the policies, practices, and procedures in
these rules. In addition, SLB rules contain more specific guidelines for evaluating a proposed
waterfront structure include siting to avoid restriction of water circulation, navigation, or public
use of the waters; design considerations such as joint use of a moorage facility by a subdivision,
motel, or multiple dwelling, and the use of a pier or catwalk in preference to solid fills to provide
needed access across biologically productive shallows and marshes to navigable waters; and
requirements that facilities provide proper handling of waste, refuse, and petroleum products
where applicable, as required by the TNRCC.

Under 31 TAC ï¿½ 1 55.3, an owner of adjacent littoral property must obtain an easement from the
SLB prior to the placement or location of a structure on state submerged lands for purposes
connected with the ownership of littoral property. The owner of littoral property may construct a
pier which is not to be used for commercial purposes and does not exceed I100 feet in length or

25 feet in width by obtaining a one-time structure registration from the SLB. While a permit is

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-50                          August 1996







not required, the location and dimensions of the pier must be included in the structure
registration. No filling or dredging is permitted without an easement from the SLB.

The SLB, according to rules set out in 31 TAC Chapter 155, grants easements for the
construction of marinas on state-owned submerged land and for associated dredging of basins
and channels. The SLB must comply with the policies in this category when granting a coastal
easement or adopting rules for marina activities. The SLB reviews projects to ensure their
conformity with the policies, practices, and procedures in these rules. Specific guidelines for
evaluating a proposed marina include project siting to minimize dredging, disruption of currents,
and the need for excavation of shore areas. Project design considerations include extending
dockage to deep water as an alternative to dredging for navigational access, avoiding dead-end or
deep canals without flushing, and designing turning basins or navigation channels to prevent
long-term degradation of water quality. Marinas are also required to provide adequate facilities
for waste disposal.

The alignment of channels or canals should make maximum use of natural or existing channels.
Design and alignment should also minimize disruption of natural sheetflow, water flow, and
drainage systems. Dredging is to be conducted in a manner that minimizes turbidity. Canals and
basins are to avoid oyster reefs and highly productive wetland areas. Dredging of channels
through highly productive coastal public lands is discouraged, and such channels are approved
only in unusual circumstances.

All marina development on coastal public lands must be undertaken in a manner that will prevent
pollution. The easement holder is responsible for using all reasonable means for recapturing all
pollutants, and for all damage to public and private property from pollution caused by faiure to
provide adequate facilities for waste and garbage.

The SLB, according to rules set out in 31 TAC Chapter IS55, grants easements for the
construction of piers, docks, wharves, and other waterfront structures on state submerged land.
The SLB must comply with the policies in this category when granting a coastal easement or
adopting rules pursuant to the siting, design, and construction of these structures.

The SLB reviews projects to ensure conformity with the policies, practices, and procedures in
these rules. Specific guidelines for evaluating a proposed pier, dock, or wharf include siting to
avoid restriction of water circulation, navigation, or public use of the waters; design
considerations, such as joint use of a moorage facility by a subdivision, motel, or multiple
dwelling, and the use of a pier or catwalk in preference to solid fills to provide needed access
across biologically productive shallows and marshes to navigable waters; and requirements that
facilities provide proper handling of waste, refuse, and petroleum products where applicable, as
required by the TNRCC.

Under 31 TAC ï¿½ 1 55.3, an easement must be obtained from the SLB by the owner of adjacent
littoral property prior to the placement or location of a structure on coastal public lands for
purposes connected with the ownership of littoral property. The owner of littoral property may
construct a pier which is not for commercial purposes and does not exceed I100 feet in length or
25 feet in width by obtaining a one-time structure registration from the SLB. W~hile a permit is


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-51                          August 1996







not required, the location and dimensions of any pier must be included in the structure
registration. No filling or dredging is permitted without an easement from the SLB.

The SLB, according to rules set out in 31 TAC Chapter 155, grants easements for the
construction ofjetties, groins, breakwaters, bulkheads, and seawalls on state submerged land.
The SLB must comply with the policies in this category when granting a coastal easement and
when adopting rules pursuant to the siting, design, and construction of these structures. The SLB
reviews projects to ensure conformity with the policies, practices, and procedures in these rules.

Specific guidelines for evaluating a proposed jetty, groin, or breakwater include an analysis to
ensure that the structure does not create adverse sediment transportation patterns that induce
erosion or undesirable shoaling in adjacent areas, and that the structure does not unduly interfere
with public use. In general, bulkheads or seawalls should be located no fur-ther seaward than the
mean high water line and designed so that reflected wave energy does not destroy stable marine
bottom or constitute a safety hazard. Where possible, sloping riprap is to be used rather than a
vertical seawall or bulkhead. Bulkhead construction should avoid hard angle turns that may
collect trash or cause shoaling or flushing problems. Bulkhead construction is normally denied if
it will lead to the destruction of a significant public marsh or grassflat.

Section 501.14(I)(1)(Q) requires mitigation of erosion due to construction or modification of
jetties, breakwaters, groins, or shore stabilization projects to the extent the costs of mitigation are
reasonably proportionate to the benefits of mitigation. The intent of this provision is to require
mitigation when the benefits of the mitigation are reasonably proportionate to both the costs of
the modification or construction and the costs of the mitigation. However, mitigation is not
required in individual cases where it is not cost-effective or where it would result in only
inconsequential benefits.

Under Chapter 51 of the Texas Natural Resources Code and 31 TAC Chapter 13, the GLO may
lease public land for commercial purposes, including recreational activity, under the terms and
conditions set by the commissioner. Approvals of Imaes under this authority must be in
compliance with these policies.

Under Chapter 33 of the Texas Natural Resources Code and 31 TAC Chapter 155, easements
may be granted for structures on coastal public lands, including those for purposes of public
recreation. Easements under this authority must be in compliance with the policies in this
category. The rules governing easements for the construction of public recreational facilities
require that certain criteria be considered. Filling for a proposed structure in a marsh or
submerged aquatic vegetation is generally denied. Authorization of such filling will only be
considered for a water-dependent use or public use an relatively unproductive public lands.
Shoreline fills should be designed and located so that no significant damage to existing
ecological values or natural resources and no alteration of natural currents will occur. Perimeters
of fills should be stabilized with vegetation, retaining walls, riprap, or other mechanisms to
prevent erosion. Material should be of such quality that it will not cause water quality
degradation.

Coastal public land means all or any portion of state-owned submerged land, the water overlying
that land, and al state-owned islands or portions of islands in the coastal zone. Submerged land

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-52                          August 1996







is any land extending from the boundary between the land of the state and the littoral owners
seaward to the low-water mark on any saltwater lake, bay, inlet, estuary, or inland water within
the tidewater limits, and any land lying beneath the body of water, but shall exclude beaches
bordering on the open Gulf of Mexico and the land lying beneath this water (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.004(6)(1 1)).

Oil and gas leases may be issued for islands, saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, and marshes owned by
the state within tidewater limits; rivers and channels owned by the state; the portion of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state; all unsold surveyed and unsurveyed public school
land; and all land sold with a reservation of minerals to the state under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½51.054 in which the state has retained leasing rights. A mineral lease plan of operations
is not currently a condition of the lease application process. Applications for mineral leases may
contain any information the commissioner requires (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.015).

Geophysical or geochemical permits are required for all exploration on public school land, which
includes all land dedicated to the permanent free school fund and specifically includes land with
a mineral classification in which the state has retained the oil and gas interest and areas within
tidewater limits (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.32 1). Except for a person who has a valid
oil and gas lease on public school land, a person may not conduct geophysical and geochemical
exploration without a permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

MEs are required for land and water uses described above for MEs across, through, and under
unsold public school land, the portion of the Gulf of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the state,
the state-owned riverbeds and beds of navigable streams in the public domain, and all islands,
saltwater lakes, bays, inlets, marshes, and reefs owned by the state within tidewater limits (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291).

Permits are required for the land uses described above for cabin permits. Permits may not be
granted for continued use of a structure located within 1000 feet of: (1) privately owned littoral
property, without written consent of the littoral owner; (2) any federal or state wildlife sanctuary
or refuge; or (3) any federal, state, county, or city park bordering on coastal public land (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½31.124).

Any state agency and all political subdivisions are authorized to establish mitigation banks,
subject to GLO approval (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 5421(u)).

Exemptions

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. Mineral lease plans of operations are not currently a
condition for obtaining a mineral lease from the GLO/SLB.

Geophysical of Geochemical Permit. Holders of valid oil and gas leases are not required to
have a geophysical or geochemical permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

Miscellaneous Easement, Surface Lease, Coastal Lease, and Navigation District Lease.
None.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-53                          August 1996







Coastal Easement, and Structure Registration. Piers over the size specified for structure
registrations are subject to the requirement of a coastal easement as specified in (TEX. NAT.
RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

Cabin Permit. No cabin permit may be required for structures, excavations, or other similar
structures as long as they are located wholly on the private littoral upland, even though the
activities may result in the area being inundated by public water (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½33.122).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based upon a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the MOA's compliance with
national guidelines adopted in November 1995.

Variances

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations, Geophysical or Geochemical Permit, Miscellaneous
Easement, Surface Lease, and Cabin Permit. None.

Structure Registration. All uses described for structure registrations must be registered with
the School Land Board (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115). There is no statutory
provision for a variance from this requirement.

Coastal Easement. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal easement
requirement.

Coastal Lease. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal lease requirement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105).

Navigation District Lease. There is no statutory provision expressly granting variance
authority.

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based on a proposed MOA.

Monitorinra and Enforcement

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. None.

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. A violation of the conditions or provisions of the
geophysical or geochemical permit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100
nor more than $1000 per day. (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.325). All operations are
subject to inspection and monitoring by the land commissioner or the commissioner's
representatives at any time. Within 30 days of the expiration of the permit, the permittee must
file with the commissioner a sworn "summary of activities" report (31 TAC ï¿½9.4(f)).

Miscellaneous Easement. Existing MEs must be renewed periodically. Easements may be i
granted for a term of years. The commissioner may set a perpetual term if it is deemed to be in

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part IH 4-54                       August 1996







     the best interest of the state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ï¿½51.296). No person may undertake the
     activities described above for MEs on state-owned land without an easement from the
     commissioner or the board. A person without an easement is subject to a penalty of not more
     than $1,000 per day, the removal of the structure, or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
     ANN. ï¿½51.302).

     Surface Lease. Failure to obtain a lease prior to engaging in the actions listed above for surface
     leases subjects the actor to a fine of no more than $1,000 per day, removal of the structure, and/or
     filing of a lien on the structure (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302). Civil penalties of not
     more than $200 per day per structure on coastal public lands may be assessed (TEX. NAT. RES.
     CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112).

     Structure Registration. Any owner of littoral property who fails to register with the School
     Land Board the location and dimensions of the pier to be constructed according to the
     specifications described for structure registrations is subject to a civil penalty of no more than
     $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.116).

     Coastal Easement. Any construction or placement of a structure on coastal public land without
     first obtaining a coastal easement from the General Land Office is subject to a civil penalty of
     not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can also result in
     penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure, or the filing
     of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).
O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Coastal Lease. Engaging in regulated activities without a coastal lease will subject the actor to a
     civil penalty of not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can
     also result in penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure,
     or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

     Cabin Permit. Failure to obtain a cabin permit is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50
     nor more than $1,000 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.120).

     Navigation District Lease. If lands leased from the state are used by the navigation district for
     any purpose or use not approved by the School Land Board, the lease may be terminated and the
     lands shall revert to the State of Texas (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

     Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The Mitigation Bank Review Team
     (MBRT) must agree to appropriate assessment methods. Selection of the appropriate assessment
     method will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Methods could include the Wetland
     Evaluation Technique, Habitat Evaluation Procedures, or other methods determined appropriate
     by the MBRT, including best professional judgement.

     Agencv's Authority to Reaulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

     Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. The Texas land commissioner may include in the lease any
     provision the commissioner considers necessary for protection of the interests of the state (TEX.
     NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.016(b)).


     Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-55                         August 1996







Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. The commissioner may make rules relating to
geophysical or geochemical exploration, permits, or permittees the commissioner considers
appropriate (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.324 and ï¿½53.163).

Miscellaneous Easement. The grant of a miscellaneous easement may contain any provisions
that the commissioner considers necessary to protect the interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.305).

Surface Lease. If an application for a surface lease is granted, the School Land Board shall
determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and considerations for the lease (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Structure Registration and Coastal Easement. None.

Coastal Lease. The SLB has the authority to determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and
consideration for a coastal lease (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Cabin Permit. The School Land Board may not grant an application for a cabin permit which
would violate the public policy of this state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.129).

Navigation District Lease. After submission of evidence, the School Land Board shall
authorize the issuance or denial of the proposed navigation district lease and shall determine any
other conditions necessary to best serve the interests of the general public (TEX. WATER CODE
ANN. ï¿½61.116).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The GLO must approve a mitigation bank
prior to the establishment and maintenance of such a bank (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art.
5421(u)).






















Texas Coastal Management Program Final ElS   Part II 4-56                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 10: DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AND
                            PLACEMENT

State Acencv Action and Manaced Uses

TNRCC - Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(0(6))

Dredging and filling operations that require a federal permit under ï¿½404 of the CWA.

RRC - Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(c)(3))

Dredging and filling activities associated with oil and gas exploration, production, or pipeline
construction that require a federal CWA ï¿½404 permit,

TxIDOT - Acquisition of a Site for the Placement or Disposal of Dredged Material from, or
the Expansion, Relocation, or Alteration of, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(D)(1))

Texas Transportation Commission acquisitions, including but not limited to easements and
rights-of-way for dredged material disposal sites and for channel expansion, relocation, or
alteration (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 5415e-2, ï¿½6(c), Texas Coastal Waterway Act of
1975).

SLB - Mineral Lease Plan of Operations
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(1))

Oil and gas and mineral leases including drilling activities, alterations to the natural landscape,
surface and bottom-hole location of the initial well, location of additional planned wells and
production facilities, location of shipping fairways and anchorage areas, anticipated routes for
pipelines, and location of routes of dredging required for all production-related activities, such as
pipelines, well-drilling, and construction of facilities.

GLO - Geophysical or Geochemical Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(2))

Geophysical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using magnetic, gravity, seismic, and/or electrical techniques.
Geochemical exploration means a survey or investigation conducted to discover or locate
minerals or oil and gas prospects using techniques involving soil sampling and analysis (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.321 and ï¿½53.161).

GLO - Miscellaneous Easement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(4))

MEs are required for construction and placement of telephone, telegraph, electric transmission,

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-57                         August 1996







and power lines; oil pipelines; gas pipelines and sulphur pipelines; other electric lines and
pipelines of any nature; irrigation canals, laterals, and water pipelines; roads; and any other
purpose the commissioner considers to be in the best interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.291). MEs are also required for electric substations, pumping stations, loading
racks, and tank farms on state land other than land owned by the University of Texas System
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.292).

GLO - Surface Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(6))

Unsold public school land and asylum land may be leased for agricultural, grazing, or
commercial purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.121).

SLB - Structure Registration
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(7))

Construction of piers by littoral property owners for noncommercial use if pier is 100 feet or less
in length and 25 feet or less in width, and requires no filling or dredging (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115).

SLB - Coastal Easement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(3))

Dredging of basins and channels on state-owned submerged land; construction of piers, docks,
marinas, bulkheads, seawalls, and other waterfront structures on state-owned submerged land.
The School Land Board may also grant easement rights to the owner of adjacent littoral property
authorizing the placement or location of a structure on coastal public land for purposes connected
with the ownership of littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

SLB - Coastal Lease
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(5))

Coastal public land may be leased to: (1) the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) or to
any eligible city or county for public recreational purposes; (2) the TPWD for management of
estuarine preserves; (3) any nonprofit, tax-exempt environmental organization approved by the
School Land Board for the purpose of managing a wildlife refuge; and (4) any scientific or
educational organization or institution for conducting scientific research (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105 and ï¿½33.109).

SLB - Cabin Permit
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(8))

Permitting of limited continued use of previously unauthorized structures on coastal public land
if the use is sought by one who is claiming an interest in the structure but is not incident to the
ownership of the littoral property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.119). Previously
unauthorized structures for which permits are obtained may be used only for noncommercial,
recreational purposes (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.128).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-58                           August 1996







               SLB - Navigation District Lease
is (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(9))

               The School Land Board may lease state-owned land to eligible navigation districts only for
              purposes reasonably related to the promotion of navigation. Navigation includes marine
               commerce and immediately related activities, including but not limited to port development;
              channel construction and maintenance; industrial site locations, transportation, shipping and
              storage facilities; pollution abatement facilities; and all other activities necessary or appropriate
              to the promotion of marine commerce. In applying for leases, districts which will require
              dredging, filling, or bulkheading must provide, among other requirements, a draft environmental
              impact statement assessing the effect of the proposed use on the environment, which statement
              shall generally conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
              district must also provide proof satisfactory to the board establishing the public convenience and
              necessity for acquisition of lands sought to be leased (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

              GLO - Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank
              (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(a)(11))

              The GLO, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
              Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Texas Parks
              and Wildlife Department, and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (Mitigation
              Bank Review Team), approves parcels of real property proposed for a mitigation bank (TEX.
              REV. CIV. STAT. ANN  art. 5421(u) and Interagency Guidelines for Development and Use of
              Mitigation Banks, GLO et al., 6-93).

              TPWD - Permit for Disturbing Marl, Sand, Shell, or Gravel on State-Owned Land
              (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(h)(3))

              TPWD issues permits for the taking of marl, sand, gravel, shell, or mudshell from the submerged
              lands of the state (PARKS & WILDLIFE CODE ANN. ï¿½86.002).

              Policies

              The TNRCC and the RRC shall comply with the policies below when issuing certifications and
              adopting rules under Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, and the Texas Natural Resources Code,
              Chapter 91, governing certification of compliance with surface water quality standards for
              federal actions and permits authorizing dredging or the discharge or placement of dredged
              material.

              TxDOT shall comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules and taking actions as
              local sponsor of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway under Texas Civil Statutes, article 5415e-2. The
              exercise of eminent domain by the Texas Transportation Commission under Article 5415e-2
              must relate to the maintenance, expansion, relocation, or alteration of the main channel, not
              including tributaries or branches, of the shallow-draft navigation channel running from the
              Sabine River southward along the Texas coast to the Brownsville Ship Channel near Port Isabel
              that is generally referred to as the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW).


              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part I 4-59                         August 1996







The GLO and the SLB shall comply with the policies in this category when approving oil, gas,
and other mineral lease plans of operations and granting surface leases, easements, and permits
and adopting rules under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 32, 33, and 51-53, and I
Texas Water Code, Chapter 61, for dredging and dredged material disposal and placement.

The TPWD shall comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules at 31 TAC
Chapter 57 (relating to Fisheries) governing dredging and dredged material disposal and
placement. The TPWD shall comply with the policies in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(8) when adopting
rules and issuing permits under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 86, governing the
mining of sand, shell, marl, gravel, and mudshell.

  1.   Dredging and the disposal and placement of dredged material shall avoid and otherwise
       minimize adverse effects to coastal waters, submerged lands, critical areas, coastal shore
       areas, and Gulf beaches to the greatest extent practicable. The policies in this category
       are supplemental to any fur-ther restrictions or requirements relating to the beach access
       and use rights of the public. In implementing this policy category, cumulative and
       secondary adverse effects of dredging and the disposal and placement of dredged material
       and the unique characteristics of affected sites shall be considered.

       A.     Dredging and dredged material disposal and placement shall not cause or
              contribute, after consideration of dilution and dispersion, to violation of any
              applicable surface water quality standards established under Policy Category 6.

       B.     Except. as otherwise provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, adverse
              effects on critical areas from dredging and dredged material disposal or placement
              shall be avoided and otherwise minimized, and appropriate and practicable
              compensatory mitigation shall be required, in accordance with Policy Category S.

       C.     Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, dredging and the
              disposal and placement of dredged material shall not be authorized if-

              i.     there is a practicable alternative that would have fewer adverse effects on
                      coastal waters, submerged lands, critical areas, coastal shore areas, and
                      Gulf beaches, so long as that alternative does not have other significant
                      adverse effects;

              Ii     all appropriate and practicable steps have not been taken to minimize
                      adverse effects on coastal waters, submerged lands, critical areas, coastal
                      shore areas, and Gulf beaches; or

              iii.   significant degradation of critical areas under Policy Category 8 would
                      result.

       D.     A dredging or dredged material disposal or placement project that would be
              prohibited solely by application of subparagraph (C) of this paragraph may be
              allowed if it is determined to be of overriding importance to the public and


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-60                        August 1996







              national interest in light of economic impacts on navigation and maintenance of
               commercially navigable waterways.

  2.   Adverse effects from dredging and dredged material disposal and placement shall be
       minimized as required in paragraph (1) of this policy. Adverse effects can be minimized
       by employing the techniques in this paragraph where appropriate and practicable.

       A.     Adverse effects from dredging and dredged material disposal and placement can
              be minimized by controlling the location and dimensions of the activity. Some of
              the ways to accomplish this include:

              1.     locating and confining discharges to minimize smothering of organisms;

              ii.    locating and designing projects to avoid adverse disruption of water
                      inundation patterns, water circulation, erosion and accretion processes, and
                      other hydrodynamic processes;

              iii.   using existing or natural channels and basins instead of dredging new
                      channels or basins, and discharging materials in areas that have been
                      previously disturbed or used for disposal or placement of dredged
                      material;

              iv.    limiting the dimensions of channels, basins, and disposal and placement
                      sites to the minimum reasonably required to serve the project purpose,
                      including allowing for reasonable overdredging of channels and basins,
                      and taking into account the need for capacity to accommodate future
                      expansion without causing additional adverse effects;

              V.     discharging materials at sites where the substrate is composed of material
                      similar to that being discharged;

              vi.    locating and designing discharges to minimize the extent of any plume and
                      otherwise control dispersion of material; and

              vii.   avoiding the impoundment or drainage of critical areas.

       B.     Dredging and disposal and placement of material to be dredged shal comply with
              applicable standards for sediment toxicity. Adverse effects from constituents
              contained in materials discharged can be minimized by treatment of or limitations
              on the material itself. Some ways to accomplish this include:

              1.     disposal or placement of dredged material in a manner that maintains
                      physiochemical conditions at discharge sites and limits or reduces the
                      potency and availability of pollutants;

              Ii     limiting the solid, liquid, and gaseous components of material discharged;


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-61                        August 1996







               iii.    adding treatment substances to the discharged material; and

               iv.    adding chemical flocculants to enhance the deposition of suspended0
                      particulates in confined disposal areas.

       C.     Adverse effects from dredging and dredged material disposal or placement can be
              minimized through control of the materials discharged. Some ways of
              accomplishing this include:

              1.     use of containment levees and sediment basins designed, constructed, and
                      maintained to resist breaches, erosion, slumping, or leaching;

              Hi.    use of lined containment areas to reduce leaching where leaching of
                      chemical constituents from the material is expected to be a problem;

              iii.    capping in-place contaminated material or, selectively discharging the
                      most contaminated material first and then capping it with the remaining
                      material;

              iv.    properly containing discharged material and maintaining discharge sites to
                      prevent point and nonpoint pollution; and

              V.     timing the discharge to minimize adverse effects from unusually high
                      water flows, wind, wave, and tidal actions.

       D.     Adverse effects from dredging and dredged material disposal or placement can be
              minimized by controlling the manner in which material is dispersed. Some ways
              of accomplishing this include:

              i.     where environmentally desirable, distributing the material in a thin layer;

              ii.    orienting material to minimize undesirable obstruction of the water current
                      or circulation patterns;

              iii.    using silt screens or other appropriate methods to confine suspended
                      particulates or turbidity to a small area where settling or removal can
                      occur;

              iv.    using currents and circulation patterns to mix, disperse, dilute, or
                      otherwise control the discharge;

              V.     minimizing turbidity by using a diffuser system or releasing material near
                      the bottom;

              vi.    selecting sites or managing discharges to confine and minimize the release
                      of suspended particulates and turbidity and maintain light penetration for0
                      organisms; and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-62                        August 1996







               vii.   setting limits on the amount of material to be discharged per unit of time
                      or volume of receiving waters.

       E.     Adverse effects from dredging and dredged material disposal or placement
               operations can be minimized by adapting technology to the needs of each site.
               Some ways of accomplishing this include:

               i.     using appropriate equipment, machinery, and operating techniques for
                      access to sites and transport of material, including those designed to
                      reduce damage to critical areas;

               ii.    having personnel on site adequately trained in avoidance and minimization
                      techniques and requirements; and

               ini.    designing temporary and permanent access roads and channel spanning
                      structures using culverts, open channels, and diversions that will pass both
                      low and high water flows, accommodate fluctuating water levels, and
                      maintain circulation and faunal movement.

       F.     Adverse effects on plant and animal populations from dredging and dredged
               material disposal or placement can be minimized by:

               i.     avoiding changes in water current and circulation patterns that would
                      interfere with the movement of animals;

               ii.    selecting sites or managing discharges to prevent or avoid creating habitat
                      conducive to the development of undesirable predators or species that have
                      a competitive edge ecologically over indigenous plants or animals;

               ii.    avoiding sites having unique habitat or other value, including habitat of
                      endangered species;

               iv.    using planning and construction practices to institute habitat development
                      and restoration to produce a new or modified environmental state of higher
                      ecological value by displacement of some or all of the existing
                      environmental characteristics;

              V.     using techniques that have been demonstrated to be effective in
                      circumstances similar to those under consideration whenever possible and,
                      when proposed development and restoration techniques have not yet
                      advanced to the pilot demonstration stage, initiating their use on a small
                      scale to allow corrective action if unanticipated adverse effects occur;

              vi.    timing dredging and dredged material disposal or placement activities to
                      avoid spawning or migration seasons and other biologically critical time
                      periods; and


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-63                        August 1996







               vii.   avoiding the destruction of remnant natural sites within areas already
                      affected by development.

       G.     Adverse effects on human use potential from dredging and dredged material
               disposal or placement can be minimized by:

               i.     selecting sites and following procedures to prevent or minimize any
                      potential damage to the aesthetically pleaing features of the site,
                      particularly with respect to water quality;

               ii.    selecting sites which are not valuable as natural aquatic areas;

               iii.   timing dredging and dredged material disposal or placement activities to
                      avoid the seasons or periods when human recreational activity associated
                      with the site is most important; and

              iv.    selecting sites that will not increase incompatible human activity or
                      require frequent dredge or fill maintenance activity in remote fish and
                      wildlife areas.

       1H.    Adverse effects from new channels and basins can be minimized by locating them
              at sites:

              i.     that ensure adequate flushing and avoid stagnant pockets; or

              ii.    that will create the fewest practicable adverse effects on CNRAs from
                      additional infrastructure such as roads, bridges, causeways, piers, docks,
                      wharves, transmission line crossings, and ancillary channels reasonably
                      likely to be constructed as a result of the project; or

              iii.    with the least practicable risk that increased vessel traffic could result in
                      navigation hazards, spills, or other forms of contamination which could
                      adversely affect CNRAs;

              iv.    provided that, for any dredging of new channels or basins subject to the
                      requirements of Policy Category 20, data and information on minimization
                      of secondary adverse effects need not be produced or evaluated to comply
                      with this subparagraph if such data and information is produced and
                      evaluated in compliance with Policy Category 20.

 3.   Disposal or placement of dredged material in existing contained dredge disposal sites
       identified and actively used as described in an environmental assessment or
       environmental impact statement issued prior to the effective date of this chapter shall be
       presumed to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this policy category unless
       modified in design, size, use, or function.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-64                        August 1996







  4.   Dredged material from dredging projects in commercially navigable waterways is a
        potentially reusable resource and must be used beneficially in accordance with this
        policy.
        A.     If the costs of the beneficial use of dredged material are reasonably comparable to
               the costs of disposal in a non-beneficial manner, the material shall be used
               beneficially.

        B.     If the costs of the beneficial use of dredged material are significantly greater than
               the costs of disposal in a non-beneficial manner, the material shall be used
               beneficially unless it is demonstrated that the costs of using the material
               beneficially are not reasonably proportionate to the costs of the project and
               benefits that will result. Factors that shall be considered in determining whether
               the costs of the beneficial use are not reasonably proportionate to the benefits
               include, but are not limited to:

               1.     environmental benefits, recreational benefits, flood or storm protection
                       benefits, erosion prevention benefits, and economic development benefits;

               ii.    the proximity of the beneficial use site to the dredge site; and

               iii.    the quantity and quality of the dredged material and its suitability for
                       beneficial use.

       C.     Examples of the beneficial use of dredged material include, but are not limited to:

               i.     projects designed to reduce or minimize erosion or provide shoreline
                       protection;

               ii.    projects designed to create or enhance public beaches or recreational areas;

               ii.    projects designed to benefit the sediment budget or littoral system;

               iv.    projects designed to improve or maintain terrestrial or aquatic wildlife
                      habitat;

               V.     projects designed to create new terrestrial or aquatic wildlife habitat,
                      including the construction of marshlands, coastal wetlands, or other
                      critical areas;

               vi.    projects designed and demonstrated to benefit benthic communities or
                      aquatic vegetation;

               vii.   projects designed to create wildlife management areas, parks, airports, or
                      other public facilities;

               Vill.   projects designed to cap landfills or other waste disposal areas;

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-65                          August 1996







              ix.    projects designed to fill private property or upgrade agricultural land, if
                      cost-effective public beneficial uses are not available; and i

              X.     projects designed to remediate past adverse impacts on the coastal zone.

 5.   If dredged material cannot be used beneficially as provided in paragraph (4)(B) of this
       policy, to avoid and otherwise minimize adverse effects as required in paragraph (1) of
       this policy, preference will be given to the greatest extent practicable to disposal in:

       A.     contained upland sites;

       B.     other contained sites; and

       C.     open water areas of relatively low productivity or low biological value.

 6.   For new sites, dredged materials shall not be disposed of or placed directly on the
       boundaries of submerged lands or at such location so as to slump or migrate across the
       boundaries of submerged lands in the absence of an agreement between the affected
       public owner and the adjoining private owner or owners that defines the location of the
       boundary or boundaries affected by the deposition of the dredged material.

 7.   Emergency dredging shall be allowed without a prior consistency determination as
       required in the applicable consistency rule when:

       A.     there is an unacceptable hazard to life or navigation;

       B.     there is an immediate threat of significant loss of property; or

       C.     an immediate and unforeseen significant economic hardship is likely if corrective
              action is not taken within a time period less than the normal time needed under
              standard procedures. The Council secretary shall be notified at least 24 hours
              prior to commencement of any emergency dredging operation by the agency or
              entity responding to the emergency. The notice shall include a statement
              demonstrating the need for emergency action. Prior to initiation of the dredging
              operations the project sponsor or permit-issuing agency shall, if possible, make all
              reasonable efforts to meet with Council's designated representatives to ensure
              consideration of and consistency with applicable policies in this category.
              Compliance with all applicable policies in this category shall be required at the
              earliest possible date. The permit-issuing agency and the applicant shall submit a
              consistency determination within 60 days after the emergency operation is
              complete.

 8.   Mining of sand, shell, marl, gravel, and mudshell on submerged lands shall be prohibited
       unless there is an affirmative showing of no significant impact on erosion within the
       coastal zone and no significant adverse effect on coastal water quality or terrestrial and

       aquatic wildlife habitat within any CNRA. i

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-66                          August 1996







Explanation

31 TAC ï¿½501.140) contains the TCMP policy on dredging and disposal and placement of
dredged material. It incorporates the TCMP critical areas policy in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(h).
Together, these two subsections are intended to incorporate into the TCMP the substance of the
standards currently applied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal waters. These
standards are called the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines because they are mandated by ï¿½404 of the federal
CWA.

The content of the two different subsections varies because each applies to slightly different
categories of activities and CNRAs. The policy in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(h) applies to the
construction of structures in and the filling of critical areas, which is equivalent to the term
"special aquatic sites" under the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines. Critical areas are coastal wetlands,
submerged aquatic vegetation, tidal sand or mud flats, oyster reefs, and hard substrate reefs. In
contrast, the policy in 31 TAC ï¿½501.140) applies to a narrower category of activities, but a
broader category of CNRAs. It applies only to dredging and disposal and placement of dredged
material. In addition to critical areas, however, it applies to coastal waters, submerged lands,
coastal shore areas, and Gulf beaches.

The dredging policy contains a special provision that is designed to incorporate into the TCMP
an equivalent to ï¿½404(b)(2) of the federal CWA. Section 404(b)(2) applies when a dredging
activity does not comply with the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines and therefore cannot be authorized. In
that case, the costs of any potential impairment to navigation resulting from not performing the
dredging, whether it be a physical impairment or an economic impairment, must also be
considered. If the costs of not dredging outweigh the benefits, the dredging may be authorized.

The TCMP reflects this provision at 31 TAC ï¿½501.140)(1)(D). It provides that if a dredging
activity would be prohibited solely by 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(1)(C), which mirrors the full
mitigation sequence and significant degradation provisions of the ï¿½404(b)(1) Guidelines, it may
be authorized if the economic consequences of failure to dredge the waterway in question would
be detrimental to the public and national interest. However, the dredging must still comply with
the provisions of 31 TAC ï¿½501.140)(1)(A) and (B), which respectively requires that impacts
must be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable and prohibits the violation of
state water quality standards.

It is anticipated that this exceptional provision will be rarely raised and even more rarely applied.
If this provision were to be invoked, it would have to be included in the consistency
determination for the dredging activity prepared by the permit applicant or federal agency
proposing the activity. Therefore, that applicant or agency bears the burden of demonstrating
that the provision applies to the dredging in question. In making these decisions, the Council
will consider the relevant statements of national interest in Chapter Seven, including specifically
that from the Corps relating to dredging.

The TCMIP establishes new state-level requirements for beneficial use of dredged material.
Section 501.14(j)(4)(B) requires that dredged material from commercially navigable waterways
be used beneficially, unless it costs "significantly greater" than disposal or placement in a

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-67                          August 1996







nonbeneficial manner and the resulting benefits do not justify the costs. This section also
establishes factors to consider if the costs of the beneficial use of dredged material are
"significantly greater" than the costs of disposal in a non-beneficial manner.

The Council and the Corps recognize that review of current maintenance dredging practices
should be phased in so that the Corps's and local sponsors' existing planning and budgeting
cycles may programmatically address these practices. Application of these policies to
maintenance dredging activities will take place through implementation of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) Between the Council and the Corps (Regarding Review of Coastal
Maintenance Dredging Activities, dated October 27, 1994).

The MOA phases in application of these policies in several ways. First, maintenance dredging
projects in commercially navigable waterways in the coastal zone will be reviewed over the first
three to five years after federal approval of the TCMP. Second, if the Council finds a
maintenance dredging project inconsistent, the MOA requires the Council and the Corps to
engage in an alternative dispute resolution process for a period of up to two years. Third, the
final consistency determination for the project may include a schedule for implementing changes
to current maintenance dredging practices required for a project to be consistent with the TCMP.

These three provisions are designed to mitigate situations where changes to current maintenance
dredging practices will be required and funds are not immediately available to implement the
changes. They are intended to provide flexibility for the Corps, local sponsors, the state, and
others to plan, budget for, and seek the necessary funding for the incremental costs under 31
TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(4)(B) or other provisions of the dredging and dredged material disposal and
placement policy.

It is the Council's goal to promote beneficial use of dredged material where it is prudent, feasible,
and cost-effective, while allowing the continued construction, operation, and maintenance of
commercially navigable waterways. If the project is a maintenance project included in the MOA,
the Council would consider the cost factors under 31 TAC ï¿½501. 14()(4)(B) within the MOA
process. Under ï¿½VII.D. of the MOA, the initial consistency determination for the project may
include a schedule for implementing a beneficial use project. This schedule would be designed
to allow sufficient time to seek necessary funding for incremental costs when a beneficial use is
prudent, feasible, and cost effective, but funds for the incremental costs are not immediately
available. If the federal sponsor, local sponsors, and if applicable, the other entities sponsoring
the beneficial use project cannot obtain funding for the incremental cost of a beneficial use
project, the cost/benefit analysis required by 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(4)(B) would include
consideration of any increased cost to dredging due to deferred maintenance, safety risks to
navigation, vessel draft restrictions, the potential for closure of a commercially navigable
waterway from the failure to dredge, and the cost to local, state, and national economies due to
closure of a commercially navigable waterway. These costs would be considered "costs of the
beneficial use" under 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(4)(B). The Council would consider them in the context
of a revised consistency determination to be submitted without consideration of a beneficial use
project. The Corps would submit this to the Council under ï¿½VIII.C of the MOA after good faith
efforts have failed to obtain funds.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-68                          August 1996








           Management Authority and Administration

           Chapter 86 of the Parks and Wildlife Code authorizes the TPWD to manage and protect marl,
           sand, gravel, shell, and mudshell located in the beds of state-owned waterways. TPWD rules
           under 31 TAC Chapter 57 establish procedures for the issuance of permits for the taking of these
           resources. The TPWTD will comply with the policy in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(j)(8) and (9) when
           adopting rules and issuing permits under this authority.

           In accordance with TPWD rules, a permit cannot be issued without findings on navigation,
           conservation, economics, general environmental concerns, fish and wildlife values, recreation,
           and relative public and private benefits. The rules require that the following criteria be
           considered in the evaluation of a permit request:

             1.   whether the operation under the proposed permit will damage or injure oysters, oyster
                  beds, or fish-inhabited waters;

            2.   whether the operation will damage or injuriously affect any island, reef, bar, channel,
                  creek, or bayou used for frequent or occasional navigation, or change any current that will
                  affect navigation; and

            3.   the requirements of industry for such sedimentary materials and the relative value of
                  their commercial use to the state.

           Other criteria considered include whether granting the permit will have a material adverse effect
           on recreational activity, commercial fishing, or the general seafood industry in the area of the
          permit and the effect, if any, on navigation in the area of the permit. The list of criteria is
          discretionary and is not exclusive, so that the TPWD may consider other factors as appropriate
          for individual permits.

           Several exemptions from the requirements to obtain a permit or pay for dredged material are
          provided. Dredging necessary or incidental to navigation and dredging under state or federal
          authority is exempt. The holder of an oil and gas lease executed by the state is not required to
          obtain a permit. Entities obtaining sand or gravel to be used on public roads and streets are
          exempt from the requirement to pay the state for materials. The taking of sediment from areas
          near a seawall for any purpose other than that necessary or incidental to navigation or dredging
          under state or federal authority is prohibited.

          If, after granting a pennit, the TPWD finds that the use of excessive equipment is causing
          siltation or other damage to oysters, oyster beds, or fish-inhabited waters, the quantity and/or
          type of equipment used in a particular area may be limited. Failure or refuisal to comply with the
          terms of the permit or the violation of any law or condition pertaining to the taking of marl, sand,
          and/or gravel will result in immediate termination or revocation of all rights conferred in or
          claimed under the permit, and the permit may be canceled by the TPWD.

.        ~~By virtue of their incorporation in 31 TAC Ch. 16, the GLO and SLB must comply with the
          policies in this category when approving oil, gas, and other mineral lease plans of operations;

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-69                           August 1996







granting surface leases, easements, and permits; and adopting rules under Chapters 32, 33, and
5 1-53 of the Texas Natural Resources Code and Chapter 61 of the Texas Water Code for
dredging and dredged material disposal and placement. The policies in 31 TAC Ch. 16 reflect I
the mitigation sequencing and other provisions of the ï¿½404(b)(l) Guidelines.

The GLO and the SLB are the management entities for activities on state-owned lands under the
authority of chapters 32, 33, and 5 1-53 of the Texas Natural Resources Code.

Under 31 TAC Chapter 155, easements are issued to lessees for dredging of channels to allow
access to the holder of any surface or mineral interests in coastal public lands for purposes
necessary or appropriate to the use of such interests. In addition to the policies in 31 TAC,
Chapter 155 establishes standards and criteria for the siting, design, and construction of dredged
channels and dredged material disposal. To the extent feasible, project plans should utilize piers
or catwalks to reach deeper water areas rather than channels or canals. A channel or basin should
be designed to ensure adequate flushing and to prevent the creation of pockets or other hydraulic
conditions which would cause stagnant water pockets. Dredging for navigational access should
be well planned to prevent excavation of an unnecessary channel. Where several landowners are
to be served by a project, peripheral canals leading to a central navigational channel should be
considered rather than separate access channels for each waterfront landowner. The alignment of
a channel or canal should make maximum use of a natural or existing channel. Design and
alignment should minimize disruption of natural sheetfiow, water flow, and drainage systems
and avoid oyster reefs and highly productive wetland areas. Any proposal to dredge a channel
through highly productive coastal public lands is discouraged and will be approved only in
unusual circumstances. Dredging should be conducted in a manner that minimizes turbidity and
dispersal of dredged material.

Guidelines for dredged material disposal include placement, to the extent possible, of all dredged
material on suitable uplands above mean high water, and location of disposal areas in areas of
relatively low productivity above the mean high water line. Any toxic material should be
disposed of in an upland area behind impervious dikes unless detoxification is undertaken.
Open-water and deep-water disposal should be considered as alternatives only if upland
alternatives are not feasible and should be seriously considered only after careful consultation
with concerned agencies. Habitat creation and improvement should be considered when only
minor environmental damage would result.

Under 31 TAC Chapter 13, miscellaneous easements are granted for rights-of-way across public
lands for oil and gas pipelines, transmission lines, roads, and other linear facilities. Surface
leases are granted for the construction of commercial facilities and other non-waterfront
structures. These authorizations must comply with the policies in this category if such structures
or facilities involve dredging or disposal and placement of dredged material.

In the Texas Coastal Waterway Act of 1975, TxDOT received a mandate to carry out a state
coastal policy relating to navigation. As part of this policy, the state declared its support of
environmentally sound shallow-draft navigation in the state's coastal waters. It is also state
policy to strive to prevent the waste of both publicly and privately owned natural resources and
to prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the environment. The state also pledged to maintain, i
preserve, and enhance wildlife and fisheries. The legislation specifically authorized TxDOT to

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-70                          August 1996







acquire by gift, purchase, or condemnation any property or interest in property deemed necessary
to fulfill its responsibilities under this authority, including easements and rights-of-way for
dredged material disposal sites and channel expansion, relocation, or alteration. TxDOT is also
responsible for evaluating the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), including the importance of
the waterway, principal problems of the waterway, significant modifications to the waterway,
and specific recommendations for legislative action.

Amendments to the Texas Coastal Waterway Act in 1995 allow the Texas Transportation
Commission, through TxDOT, to enter into agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to participate in the cost of a project to benieficially use material dredged from the GIWW.

TxDOT has organized a state interagency committee of natural and economic resource agencies
to help address problems and to recommend solutions concerning the GlWW. The committee
also assists in the selection of dredged material disposal sites. As a means of selecting
environmentally and operationally suitable sites, TxDOT appoints a task force consisting of
representatives from state agencies, the Corps of Engineers, and federal resource protection
agencies. After a site has met the approval of the task force, the Corps of Engineers coordinates
the environmental approval process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
The opinions and recommendations of the task force are advisory in nature.

The 1975 legislation mandates that public hearings be held to receive evidence and testimony
concerning the desirability of the proposed acquisition of any property or interest in property for
any dredged material disposal site, or for the widening, relocation, or alteration of the main
channel of the GIWW. Based on public testimony and environmental findings, TxDOT makes a
determination on the proposed use of the property.

TxDOT must comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules and taking actions as
local sponsor of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway under Texas Civil Statutes, article 5415e-2.

The commission is the state agency responsible for issuing certifications pursuant to ï¿½401 of the
federal CWA to ensure that federal permits for dredging and filling activities comply with Texas
Water Quality Standards. No person may conduct any activity under federal permit or license
which may result in any discharge into or adjacent to waters in the state unless the person has
received a certification (30 TAC ï¿½279.4).

In accordance with the federal CWA ï¿½404, any entity intending to discharge dredged or fill
material into the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, must obtain a permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. All ï¿½404 permits must receive a water quality certification from the
RRC under ï¿½401 of the CWA for dredging activities associated with oil and gas exploration,
development, and production, including transportation by pipeline or from the TNRCC for all
other dredging activities. The ï¿½401 water quality certification attests that a proposed activity
resulting in a discharge to surface waters will not cause a violation of the state's water quality
standards set out in 30 TAC Chapter 307. The TNRCC and the RRC must comply with the
policies in this category when issuing water quality certifications and adopting rules under
Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code and Chapter 91 of the Texas Natural Resources Code,
governing certification of compliance with surface water quality standards for federal actions and
permits authorizing dredging or the discharge or placement of dredged material.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-71                           August 1996







The TNRCC's ï¿½401 water quality certification review process has been strengthened by
clarifying the TNRCC's policy on wetlands protection and by providing consistency between
related state and federal rules (30 TAC ï¿½279.11). The TNRCC regulations incorporate a
mitigation sequence to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse impacts on wetlands. The
Railroad Commission has adopted rules for a ï¿½401 water quality certification process similar to
the process adopted by the TNRCC.

The RRC is the state agency responsible for issuing certifications pursuant to ï¿½401 of the federal
CWA to ensure that federal permits for dredging and filling activities associated with oil and gas
exploration, production, or pipeline construction comply with Texas Water Quality Standards.

The TPWD must comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules under 31 TAC
Chapter 57 (relating to fisheries) governing dredging and dredged material disposal and
placement. The rules under Chapter 57 recognize that wetland areas are of indispensable value
to fish and wildlife. Section 57.1 provides guidance to staff commenting on permits for dredging
or advocating methods of disposal of dredged material to minimize detrimental environmental
effects. Section 57.141 provides that the TPWD will oppose wetland channelization and
drainage as a general practice.

Exemptions

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material Excepted
from this provision are activities exempted from the requirement for a permit for the discharge of
dredged or fill material, described in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, ï¿½323.4 and/or Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 40, ï¿½232.3, including but not limited to normal farming,
silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and
harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water
conservation practices. A ï¿½401 water quality certification is not required for these activities.

Acquisition of a Site for the Placement or Disposal of Dredged Material From, or the
Expansion, Relocation, or Alteration of, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. None.

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. Mineral lease plans of operations are not currently a
condition for obtaining a mineral lease from the GLO/SLB.

Geophysical of Geochemical Permit. Holders of valid oil and gas leases are not required to
have a geophysical or geochemical permit (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.322).

Miscellaneous Easement, Surface Lease, Coastal Lease, and Navigation District Lease.
None.

Coastal Easement, and Structure Registration. Piers over the size specified for structure
registrations are subject to the requirement of a coastal easement as specified in (TEX. NAT.
RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.111).

Cabin Permit. No cabin permit may be required for structures, excavations, or other similar
structures as long as they are located wholly on the private littoral upland, even though the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-72                          August 1996







activities may result in the area being inundated by public water (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½33.122).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based upon a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the MOA's compliance with
national guidelines adopted in November 1995.

Permit for Disturbing Marl, Sand, Shell, or Gravel on State-Owned Land. Several
exemptions apply to the use of marl, sand, gravel, shell, and mudshell for public purposes, such
as seawalls and state oil and gas leases (PARKS & WILDLIFE CODE ANN. Ch. 86).

Variances

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The RRC
may waive the requirement for water quality certification (16 TAC ï¿½3.93).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
TNRCC may waive the requirement for water quality certification (30 TAC ï¿½279.4).

Acquisition of a Site for the Placement or Disposal of Dredged Material From, or the
Expansion, Relocation, or Alteration of, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. None.

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations, Geophysical or Geochemical Permit, Miscellaneous
Easement, Surface Lease, and Cabin Permit. None.

Structure Registration. All uses described for structure registrations must be registered with
the School Land Board (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.115). There is no statutory
provision for a variance from this requirement.

Coastal Easement. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal easement
requirement.

Coastal Lease. There is no statutory provision for varying from the coastal lease requirement
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.105).

Navigation District Lease. There is no statutory provision expressly granting variance
authority.

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Approval of a wetland mitigation bank is
based on a proposed MOA.

Permit for Disturbing Marl, Sand, Shell, or Gravel on State-Owned Land. None.

Monitorinc and Enforcement

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. Members
and employees of the RRC, on proper identification, may enter public or private property to

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-73                     August 1996







inspect and investigate conditions relating to the quality of water in the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½91.1012). Violations may subject a person to administrative penalties of up to
$10,000 per day for each violation as well as criminal penalties (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½81.0531 and ï¿½91.002).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
members of the TNRCC and their agents are entitled to enter any public or private property at
any reasonable time for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the
water quality of the state (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.014). Violations may subject a
person to administrative penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each violation as well as civil and
criminal penalties (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.136, ï¿½26.122, and ï¿½26.2121).

Acquisition of a Site for the Placement or Disposal of Dredged Material From, or the
Expansion, Relocation, or Alteration of, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Not applicable.

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. None.

Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. A violation of the conditions or provisions of the
geophysical or geochemical permit is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100
nor more than $1000 per day. (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.325). All operations are
subject to inspection and monitoring by the land commissioner or the commissioner's
representatives at any time. Within 30 days of the expiration of the permit, the permittee must
file with the commissioner a sworn "summary of activities" report (31 TAC ï¿½9.4(f)).          ,       

Miscellaneous Easement. Existing MEs must be renewed periodically. Easements may be
granted for a term of years. The commissioner may set a perpetual term if it is deemed to be in
the best interest of the state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ï¿½51.296). No person may undertake the
activities described above for MEs on state-owned land without an easement from the
commissioner or the board. A person without an easement is subject to a penalty of not more
than $1,000 per day, the removal of the structure, or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Surface Lease. Failure to obtain a lease prior to engaging in the actions listed above for surface
leases subjects the actor to a fine of no more than $1,000 per day, removal of the structure, and/or
filing of a lien on the structure (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302). Civil penalties of not
more than $200 per day per structure on coastal public lands may be assessed (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112).

Structure Registration. Any owner of littoral property who fails to register with the School
Land Board the location and dimensions of the pier to be constructed according to the
specifications described for structure registrations is subject to a civil penalty of no more than
$200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.116).

Coastal Easement. Any construction or placement of a structure on coastal public land without
first obtaining a coastal easement from the General Land Office is subject to a civil penalty of
not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can also result in


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-74                           August 1996







penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure, or the filing
of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Coastal Lease. Engaging in regulated activities without a coastal lease will subject the actor to a
civil penalty of not more than $200 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.112). Violations can
also result in penalties of no more than $1,000 per day per violation, the removal of the structure,
or the filing of a lien (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½51.302).

Cabin Permit. Failure to obtain a cabin permit is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50
nor more than $1,000 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.120).

Navigation District Lease. If lands leased from the state are used by the navigation district for
any purpose or use not approved by the School Land Board, the lease may be terminated and the
lands shall revert to the State of Texas (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The Mitigation Bank Review Team
(MBRT) must agree to appropriate assessment methods. Selection of the appropriate assessment
method will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Methods could include the Wetland
Evaluation Technique, Habitat Evaluation Procedures, or other methods determined appropriate
by the MBRT, including best professional judgement.

Permit for Disturbing Marl, Sand, Shell, or Gravel on State-Owned Land. Persons violating
the provisions of Chapter 86 are subject to penalties of $500 per day. (PARKS & WILDLIFE
CODE ANN. ï¿½{86.020).

Aeencv's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfv TCMP Policv

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. The
Railroad Commission is required to adopt rules and issue permits as necessary to prevent
pollution of surface and subsurface water related to oil and gas exploration and production
activities (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½91.101).

Certification of a Federal Permit for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material. After a
public hearing, notice of which shall be given to the permittee, the TNRCC may require the
permittee to conform to new or additional conditions (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½26.029).

Acquisition of a Site for the Placement or Disposal of Dredged Material From, or the
Expansion, Relocation, or Alteration of, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Section 6(d) of
article 5415e-2 requires the Texas Transportation Commission to coordinate with appropriate
state and federal agencies whenever its proposed acquisitions will potentially have a significant
environmental impact or effect on coastal public lands, coastal marshes and similar areas,
wildlife, or fisheries.

Mineral Lease Plan of Operations. The Texas land commissioner may include in the lease any
provision the commissioner considers necessary for protection of the interests of the state (TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½53.016(b)).


Texas Coastal Management Program Final ElS   Part H 4-75                          August 1996







Geophysical or Geochemical Permit. The commissioner may make rules relating to
geophysical or geochemical exploration, permits, or permittees the commissioner considers
appropriate (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½52.324 and ï¿½53.163).

Miscellaneous Easement. The grant of a miscellaneous easement may contain any provisions
that the commissioner considers necessary to protect the interests of the state (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½51.305).

Surface Lease. If an application for a surface lease is granted, the School Land Board shall
determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and considerations for the lease (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Structure Registration and Coastal Easement. None.

Coastal Lease. The SLB has the authority to determine the reasonable terms, conditions, and
consideration for a coastal lease (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.104).

Cabin Permit. The School Land Board may not grant an application for a cabin permit which
would violate the public policy of this state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.129).

Navigation District Lease. After submission of evidence, the School Land Board shall
authorize the issuance or denial of the proposed navigation district lease and shall determine any
other conditions necessary to best serve the interests of the general public (TEX. WATER CODE
ANN. ï¿½61.116).

Agency or Subdivision Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The GLO must approve a mitigation bank
prior to the establishment and maintenance of such a bank (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art.
5421(u)).

Permit for Disturbing Marl, Sand, Shell, or Gravel on State-Owned Land. The Parks and
Wildlife Commission shall manage, control, and protect marl and sand of commercial value and
all gravel, shell, and mudshell located within the tidewater limits of the state and on islands
within those limits, and within the freshwater areas of the state not embraced by a survey of
private land, and on islands within those areas (PARKS & WILDLIFE CODE ANN. ï¿½86.001).















Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-76                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 11: CONSTRUCTION IN THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM

State Avencv Action and Manafed Uses

GLO - Certification of Local Government Beach Access or Dune Protection Plan
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½:3.2053(a)(10))

Certain local governments are required to adopt and implement programs for the preservation of
dunes and enhancement of use of and access to and from public beach (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.3(a)). The
plans regulate activities that could destroy or promote erosion of public beaches and other coastal
public resources. They encourage environmentally sound erosion response methods and
discourage methods such as rigid shorefront structures which can have a harmful impact on the
environment (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.1(5)).

Local Government - Dune Protection Permit that Authorizes Construction Activity that is
Located 200 Feet or Less Landward of the Line of Vegetation and that Results in the
Disturbance of more than 7,000 Square Feet of Dunes or Dune Vegetation, Construction
Activity that Results in the Disturbance of more 7,500 Cubic Yards of Dunes, or a Coastal
Shore Protection Project Undertaken on a Gulf Beach or 200 Feet or Less Landward of the
Line of Vegetation that Affects more than 500 Linear Feet of Gulf Beach
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½ï¿½33.2053(J)(1)-(3))

Damaging, destroying, or removing a sand dune or portion of a sand dune seaward of a dune
protection line or within a critical dune area or killing, destroying, or removing in any manner
any vegetation growing on a sand dune seaward of a dune protection line or within a critical dune
area (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.091). Prohibited land and water use: construction of
any barrier, obstruction, or restraint that will interfere with the public's right to enter, leave, or
use any public beach or any larger area abutting on or contiguous to a public beach if the public
has acquired a right of use or easement or has retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the
public (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.013).

Local Government - Beachfront Construction Certificate that Authorizes Construction
Activity that is Located 200 Feet or Less Landward of the Line of Vegetation and that
Results in the Disturbance of More than 7,000 Square Feet of Dunes or Dune Vegetation, a
Coastal Shore Protection Project Undertaken on a Gulf Beach o' 200 Feet or Less
Landward of the Line of Vegetation that Affects More than 500 Linear Feet of Gulf Beach,
or a Closure, Relocation, or Reduction in Existing Public Beach Access or Public Beach
Access Designated in an Approved Local Government Beach Access Plan, Other than for a
Short Term(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½ï¿½33.2053(I)(1),(3), and (4))

The certificate regulates construction that could destroy and erode public beaches and other
coastal public resources (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.1 (5)).

Policies

The GLO shall comply with the policies in this category when certifying local government dune
protection and beach access plans and adopting rules under the Texas Natural Resources Code,

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-77                      August 1996







Chapters 61 and 63. Local governments required by the Texas Natural Resources Code,
Chapters 61 and 63, and 3 1 TAC Chapter IS (relating to Coastal Area Planning) to adopt dune
protection and beach access plans shall comply with the applicable policies in this category when
issuing beachfront construction certificates and dune protection permits.

Construction in critical dune areas and adjacent to Gulf beaches shall comply with the policies in
this category.

       A.     Construction within a critical dune area that results in the material weakening of
              dunes and material damage to dune vegetation shall be prohibited.

       B.     Construction within critical dune areas that does not materially weaken dunes or
              materially damage dune vegetation shall be sited, designed, constructed,
              maintained, and operated so that adverse "effects" (as defined in 31 TAC ï¿½ 15.2,
              relating to Coastal Area Planning) on the sediment budget and critical dune areas
              are avoided to the greatest extent practicable. Practicability shall be determined
              by considering the effectiveness, scientific feasibility, and commercial availability
              of the technology or technique. Cost of the technology or technique shall also be
              considered. Adverse effects (as defined in 31 TAC Chapter 15, relating to Coastal
              Area Planning) that cannot be avoided shall be:

              1.     minimized by limiting the degree or magnitude of the activity and its
                      implementation; I

              ii.    rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the adversely affected0
                      dunes and dune vegetation; and

              iii.    compensated for on-site or off-site by replacing the resources lost or
                      damaged seaward of the dune protection line.

       C.     Rectification and compensation for adverse effects that cannot be avoided or
              minimized shall provide at least a one-to-one replacement of the dune volume and
              vegetative cover, and preference shall be given to stabilization of blowouts and
              breaches and on-site compensation.

       D.     The ability of the public, individually and collectively, to exercise its rights of use
              of and access to and from public beaches shall be preserved and enhanced.

       E.     Nonstructural erosion response methods such as beach nourishment, sediment
              bypassing, nearshore sediment berms, and planting of vegetation shall be
              preferred instead of structural erosion response methods. Subdivisions shall not
              authorize the construction of a new erosion response structure within the
              beach/dune system, except for a retaining wall located more than 200 feet
              landward of the line of vegetation. Subdivisions shall not authorize the
              enlargement, improvement, repair or maintenance of existing erosion response
              structures on the public beach. Subdivisions shall not authorize the repair or Is
              maintenance of existing erosion response structures within 200 feet landward of

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 1I 4-78                          August 1996







               the line of vegetation except as provided in 31 TAC 15.6(d) of this title (relating
               to Concurrent Dune Protection and Beachfront Construction Standards).

Manacement Authoritv and Administration

Under Chapter 61 of the Texas Natural Resources Code and 31 TAC Chapter 15, the GLO and
the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) are responsible for protecting the public's right to use
and have access to and from the public beach, and for providing standards to the local
governments certifying that construction on land adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico is consistent
with such public rights.

Coastal development is the primary activity the GLO manages under the Open Beaches Act
(Chapter 61 of the Texas Natural Resources Code), the Dune Protection Act (Chapter 63 of the
Texas Natural Resources Code), and Texas Water Code, Chapter 16. GLO jurisdiction extends
to the construction of public, residential, commercial, and industrial structures that affect the
critical dune areas, Gulf beaches, and coastal hazard areas. Amendments to the above-mentioned
acts in 1991 required the GLO to promulgate rules for the protection of coastal sand dunes and to
ensure the public's right to use of and access to the public beach. The GLO must comply with
the policies in this category when certifying local government dune protection and beach access
plans.

The beachfront construction certification area is the land adjacent to and landward of public
beaches and lying in the area either up to the first public road not parallel to the beach, or the area
up to 1,000 feet of mean high tide, whichever distance is greater (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.3(c)). Critical
dune areas are all dunes and dune complexes located within 1,000 feet of mean high tide of the
Gulf of Mexico (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.3(d)). Local governments without certified plans cannot permit
construction within the jurisdiction of the Dune Protection and Open Beaches Acts (31 TAC
ï¿½15.3(p)).

Local governments have direct management authority over coastal development but are subject
to GLO and OAG oversight. The Open Beaches Act and Dune Protection Act require local
governments to adopt dune protection and beach access plans that comply with the GLO rules for
management of the beach/dune system. Local governments can fund, directly engage in, or
permit construction activities affecting the beach/dune system. Local governments required by
the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 61 and 63, and 31 TAC Chapter 15 (relating to
Coastal Area Planning) to adopt dune protection and beach access plans must comply with the
GLO rules and the policies in this category when issuing beachfront construction certificates and
dune protection permits.

The beachfront construction certification area is the land adjacent to and landward of public
beaches and lying in the area either up to the first public road not parallel to the beach, or the area
up to 1,000 feet of mean high tide, whichever distance is greater (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.3(c)).

Critical dune areas are within 1,000 feet of mean high tide and are essential to the protection of
state-owned land, public beaches, and submerged land (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
ï¿½63.121). Permits are required within the critical dune area or seaward of the dune protection
line (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.0091).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-79                          August 1996







Exemptions

Certification of Local Government Beach Access or Dune Protection Plan. National park
areas, national wildlife refuges, or other designated national natural areas; state park areas, state
wildlife refuges, or other designated state natural areas; and beaches on islands and peninsulas
not accessible by public road or ferry are exempt from local government plans (31 TAC
ï¿½15.3(q)).

Beachfront Construction Certificate. Beachfront certification for construction does not
prevent any agency or subdivision of the state or federal government from erecting or
maintaining any groin, seawall, barrier, pass, channel, jetty, or other structure as an aid to
navigation, protection of the shore, fishing, safety, or other lawful purpose authorized by the
constitution or laws of Texas or the United States (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.022).

Dune Protection Permit. The following activities are exempt from permit requirements but are
subject to requirements of the Open Beaches Act and local laws: (1) exploration for and
production of oil and gas and reasonable and necessary activities directly related to such
exploration and production; (2) grazing livestock and reasonable and necessary activities directly
related to grazing; and (3) recreational activities other than operation of a recreational vehicle
(31 TAC ï¿½15.3(s)(2)).

Variances

Certification of Local Government Beach Access or Dune Protection Plan. There is no
provision authorizing variances from the requirements for certification of local government
plans.

Dune Protection Permit and Beachfront Construction Certificate. A local government shall
inform the GLO and the FEMA regional representative before it issues any variance from FEMA
regulations or allows any activity in variance of FEMA's regulations (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.6(e)(2)).

Monitoring and Enforcement

Certification of Local Government Beach Access or Dune Protection Plan. Any person or
local government who violates the Dune Protection Act, the Open Beaches Act, or a permit or a
certificate condition is liable to the GLO for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 per violation
per day (31 TAC ï¿½15.9).

Beachfront Construction Certificate. Any person or local government who violates a
certificate condition is liable to the GLO for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 per day (31
TAC ï¿½ 15.9). The GLO may assist the attorney general in enforcement (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. ï¿½61.01 1).

Dune Protection Permit. Any person or local government who violates the Dune Protection
Act, the Open Beaches Act, or a permit or certificate condition is subjected to a civil penalty of
not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 per violation per day (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.9).


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part H1 4-80                           August 1996






               Aaencv's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

0s             Certification of Local Government Beach Access or Dune Protection Plan. The
               commissioners court or other governing body of the municipality may include in a permit the
               terms and conditions it finds necessary to assure the protection of life, natural resources, and
              property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.055).

              Beachfront Construction Certificate. Certification is issued pursuant to the public policy of
              the state which upholds the public right to ingress and egress to and from state-owned beaches
              within the scope described under "Agency Action and Managed Uses" above. The public policy
              forbids interference with safe and healthy use of state beaches (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
               ï¿½61.011).

              Dune Protection Permit. The commissioners court or governing body of the municipality may
              include in a permit the terms and conditions it finds necessary to assure the protection of life,
              natural resources, and property (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½63.055).






























e

              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-81                          August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 12: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HAZARD AREAS

Policies i

1.     Subdivisions participating in the National Flood Insurance Program shall adopt
       ordinances or orders governing development in special hazard areas under Texas Water
       Code, Chapter 16, Subchapter I, and Texas Local Govermnent Code, Chapter 240,
       Subchapter Z, that comply with construction standards in regulations at Code of Federal
       Regulations, Title 44, Parts 59-60, adopted pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act,
       42 United States Code Annotated, ï¿½ï¿½4001 et seq.

2.     Pursuant to the standards and procedures under the Texas Natural Resources Code,
       Chapter 33, Subchapter H, the GLO shall adopt or issue rules, recommendations,
       standards, and guidelines for erosion avoidance and remediation and for prioritizing
       critical erosion areas.

Management Authoritv and Administration

The National Flood Insurance Program is a voluntary federal program in which local
governments may participate. The purpose of the program is to make flood insurance coverage
available for those communities that encourage sound land use by minimizing exposure of
property to flood loss. Local governments have the state authority to implement the federal
regulations under Texas Water Code, Chapter 16, Subchapter I, governing flood insurance, and
Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 240, Subchapter Z, governing land use regulation for
flood control in coastal counties. The construction standards under Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 44, Parts 59-60, adopted pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C.A. ï¿½4001
et seq.) establish minimum bottom-floor elevations and require that structures be designed for
resistance to wind and water loads.

Under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, the GLO is responsible for coordinating a
plan and promulgating rules for coastal erosion avoidance and remediation. See "Shoreline
Erosion Response" in Chapter Six, "Special Planning."

















Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-82                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 13: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE
                            SYSTEM UNITS AND OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS ON
                            COASTAL BARRIERS

State Acenov Action and Manaoed Uses

TNRCC - Creation of a Special Purpose District or Approval of Bonds for the Purpose of
Construction of Infrastructure on Coastal Barriers
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(t)(4))

Levee improvement districts are created to construct and maintain levees along rivers, streams,
and creeks; regulate drainage; and perform other improvements of reclaimed land (TEX.
WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½57.091). Irrigation districts are created to deliver untreated water for
irrigation and to provide for drainage of lands (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½58.121).
Navigation districts are created for purposes reasonably related to the promotion of navigation
(TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½61.116). Special utility districts may be created to provide water
to towns, cities, and other political subdivisions of this state, to private business entities, and to
individuals (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½65.012). Stormwater control districts are created to
control stormwater and floodwater and to prevent area and downstream flooding in all or part of
a watershed (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½66.012).

TxDOT - Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(d)(2))

Texas Transportation Commission approvals of plans for the location, construction, and
maintenance of the state highway system and public roads and of the location, construction, and
maintenance of individual state highway system projects.

Policies

TNRCC rules and approvals for the creation of special districts and for infrastructure projects
funded by issuance of bonds by water, sanitary sewer, and wastewater drainage districts under
Texas Water Code, Chapter 50; water control and improvement districts under Texas Water
Code, Chapter 50; municipal utility districts under Texas Water Code, Chapter 54; regional plan
implementation agencies under Texas Water Code, Chapter 54; special utility districts under
Texas Water Code, Chapter 65; stormwater control districts under Texas Water Code, Chapter
66; and all other general and special law districts subject to and within the jurisdiction of the
TNRCC, shall comply with the policies in this category.

TxDOT rules and approvals under Texas Civil Statutes, article 6663 et seq., governing planning,
design, construction, and maintenance of transportation projects, shall comply with the policies
in this category.

Development of new infrastructure or major repair of existing infrastructure within or supporting
development within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units and Otherwise Protected Areas
designated on maps dated October 24, 1990, under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 United
States Code Annotated, ï¿½3503(a), shall comply with the policies in this category.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-83                           August 1996







  A.   Development of publicly funded infrastructure shall be authorized only if it is essential
       for public health, safety, and welfare, enhances public use, or is required by law.

  B.   Infrastructure shall be located at sites at which reasonably foreseeable future expansion
       will not require development in critical areas, critical dunes, Gulf beaches, and washover
       areas within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units or Otherwise Protected Areas.

  C.   Infrastructure shall be located at sites that to the greatest extent practicable avoid and
       otherwise minimize the potential for adverse effects on critical areas, critical dunes, Gulf
       beaches, and washover areas within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units or Otherwise
       Protected Areas from:

          1. construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, and causeways; and

          Hi. direct release to coastal waters, critical areas, critical dunes, Gulf beaches, and
               washover areas within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units or Otherwise
               Protected Areas of oil, hazardous substances, or stormwater runoff.

  D.  Where practicable, infrastructure shall be located in existing rights-of-way or previously
       disturbed areas to avoid or minimize adverse effects within Coastal Barrier Resource
       System Units or Otherwise Protected Areas.

  E.   Development of infrastructure shall occur at sites and times selected to have the least
       adverse effects practicable within Coastal Barrier Resource System Units or Otherwise
       Protected Areas on critical areas, critical dunes, Gulf beaches, and washover areas and on
       spawning or nesting areas or seasonal migrations of commercial, recreational, threatened,
       or endangered terrestrial or aquatic wildlife.

Manakgement Authority and Administration

The TNRCC has the statutory authority to create and supervise certain water and water-related
districts and to approve the issuance and sale of bonds for a district's construction of
infrastructure in accordance with Texas Water Code, Chapters 50-52, 54, 65, and 66. TNRCC
rules and approvals for the creation of special districts or for infrastructure projects funded by
issuance of bonds by water, sanitary sewer, and wastewater drainage districts; water control and
improvement districts; municipal utility districts; regional plan implementation agencies; special
utility districts; stormwater control districts; and all other general and special law districts within
the TNRCC's jurisdiction must comply with the policies in this category.

A district may include the area in all or part of any one or more counties including all or part of
any cities and other public agencies. The land composing a district is not required to be
contiguous, but may consist of separate bodies of land separated by land that is not included in
the district (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½65.013).

The purpose of the TNRCC's oversight of district creation and projects is to ensure that the
districts fulfill their obligation under article III, ï¿½52, and article XVI, ï¿½59, of the Texas
Constitution to conserve and develop the natural resources of the state in a manner not contrary

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-84                           August 1996







to the public health, safety, and welfare. Regulations in 30 TAC Chapters 293 and 301 authorize
the TNRCC to review certain information when deciding whether to approve creation of a
district or the use of bonds to finance construction of infrastructure. This includes the location of
the infrastructure, land and floodwater elevations, areas to be filled, existing hydrologic
conditions, floodplain boundaries, and the effects of the infrastructure on stormwater runoff and
water quality.

TxDOT rules and approvals governing planning, design, construction, and maintenance of
transportation projects under Texas Civil Statutes, article 6663 et seq., must comply with the
policies in this category. TXDOT's authorities and guidelines regarding transportation projects
are described in this chapter under Policy Category 16, "Transportation."

The Texas Transportation Commission is authorized to locate, construct, maintain, and operate
the state highway system (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6674w-1). This authority includes
the power of eminent domain (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6674w-3).

Exemptions

Creation of a Special Purpose District or Approval of Bonds for the Purpose of
Construction of Infrastructure on Coastal Barriers. None.

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. None.

Variances

Creation of a Special Purpose District or Approval of Bonds for the Purpose of
Construction of Infrastructure on Coastal Barriers. None.

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. None.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Creation of a Special Purpose District or Approval of Bonds for the Purpose of
Construction of Infrastructure on Coastal Barriers. The executive director of the TNRCC
has access to all the financial records of a special purpose district (TEX. WATER CODE ANN.
ï¿½50.376). Special purpose districts are required to undergo annual audits which are subject to
review by the executive director of the TNRCC (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½50.371 et seq.).
Districts which do not comply with the audit requirements are subject to civil penalties of $100
per day (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½50.374).

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. Not applicable.

AMencv's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policv

Creation of a Special Purpose District or Approval of Bonds for the Purpose of
Construction of Infrastructure on Coastal Barriers. If a proposed district does not conform
to legal requirements or is not feasible, practicable, necessary, or a benefit to the land in the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-85                         August 1996







district, the TNRCC may deny the creation of the district (TEX. WATER CODE ANN.
ï¿½65.021).

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. The Texas Transportation
Commission is required to conduct environmental reviews of all highway projects not otherwise
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.A. ï¿½4321 et seq.). The
environmental review process provides for public comment, the analysis of project alternatives,
the evaluation of direct and indirect effects, and the mitigation of environmental harm (TEX.
REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6673g and 43 TAC ï¿½ï¿½1 1.80-11.90). The Commission is also
required to adopt a memorandum of understanding with each state agency that has
responsibilities for the protection of the natural environment so as to coordinate the review of the
environmental impacts of highway projects.








































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-86                        August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 14: DEVELOPMENT IN STATE PARKS, WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT AREAS, OR PRESERVES

State Aeencv Action and Managed Uses

TPWD - Development by a Person Other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
that Requires the Use or Taking of any Public Land in a State Park, Wildlife Management
Area, or Preserve
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(h)(4))

Development efforts in state parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves, including the
construction of park improvements and access roads. All state parks, wildlife management areas,
and preserves within the coastal zone are covered.

Policies

Development by a person other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that requires the
use or taking of any public land in such areas shall comply with Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter
26.

Manaaement Authority and Administration

Chapter 26 of the Parks and Wildlife Code limits development on protected lands. The statute
states that a governmental entity of the state may not approve any program or project that
requires the use or taking of any public land designated and used as a park, recreation area,
scientific area, wildlife refuge, or historic site unless the approving entity determines that (1)
there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such land; and (2) the program
or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, for purposes for which
it is designated, resulting from the use or taking. There are also provisions for consideration of
local preferences for the area, public notice, public hearings, and judicial reviews. The Parks and
Wildlife Commission's environmental policy directs the TPWD to use sound principles of natural
resource management in all activities and in operation of department facilities.

The Texas Coastal Preserve System established in October 1987 can be used to protect and
restore specific state-owned areas for their conservation, ecological, and aesthetic values. The
Coastal Preserve System was established through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the General Land Office and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The MOA provides for:
(1) a coastal preserve coordinator to be designated at each agency to ensure that all concerns are
addressed, (2) development of a list of candidate sites with suggested goals and management
activities to most effectively preserve the target natural resources, and (3) public meetings to be
held near suggested preserve sites for open discussion of coastal preserve goals and management
activities and for receipt of comments.

To date, four coastal preserves have been designated. South Bay is a 3,419-acre estuarine area at
the southernmost extreme of the Laguna Madre. It comprises seagrass, algal flats, and mangrove
habitats and a unique oyster population that has adapted to high salinity levels. Welder Flats is


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-87                         August 1996







an area of approximately 1,480 acres of submerged land across San Antonio Bay from the
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. This area is an important whooping crane habitat.

Armand Bayou is a 2,000-acre recreation and wilderness area adjacent to the Armand Bayou
Nature Center in Harris County. It is surrounded by the heavy urban development of the
Houston area. Christmas Bay, a shallow, 4,173-acre embayment adjacent to the Brazoria
National Wildlife Refuge, is relatively unaffected by human activity. Though 15 threatened or
endangered species have been seen in the area, the bay is best known for the mounds of oyster
and clam shells that remain on its shores as evidence of previous occupation by the now extinct
Karankawa Indians.

Exemptions

Development by a Person Other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that
Requires the Use or Taking of any Public Land in a State Park, Wildlife Management
Area, or Preserve. None.

Variances

Development by a Person Other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that
Requires the Use or Taking of any Public Land in a State Park, Wildlife Management
Area, or Preserve. Not applicable.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Development by a Person Other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that
Requires the Use or Taking of any Public Land in a State Park, Wildlife Management
Area, or Preserve. The state auditor reviews contracts for construction and development on
state properties including state parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves.

Agencyv's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfv TCMP Policv

Development by a Person Other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department that
Requires the Use or Taking of any Public Land in a State Park, Wildlife Management
Area, or Preserve. The department has broad authority to regulate planning for and
development of park projects (31 TAC ï¿½59.31).













Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-88                    August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 15: ALTERATION OF COASTAL HISTORIC AREAS

State Aiencv Action and Managed Uses

THC - Permit for Destruction, Alteration, or Taking of a Coastal Historic Area
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(E)(1))

A permit is required for the taking, altering, damaging, destroying, salvaging, or excavating of
state archeological landmarks. Permits are also required for site-assessment-related activities,
such as surveys, testing, excavation, and preservation activities and for specially designated
archeological landmarks on private property, as well as American Indian or aboriginal paintings
(13 TAC ï¿½41.20 and ï¿½41.2).

THC - Review of a Federal Undertaking Affecting a Coastal Historic Area
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(E)(2))

Federal undertakings affecting property listed in the National Register or affecting property
eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Such properties are nationally significant for their
illustration or commemoration of the history or prehistory of the United States (36 CFR Part 800
and 36 CFR Part 60).

Policies

The Texas Historical Commission shall comply with the policies in this category when adopting
rules and issuing permits under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 191, governing
alteration of coastal historic areas. The THC shall comply with the policies in this category
when issuing reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act, ï¿½106 (16 U.S.C.A. ï¿½470f),
and the regulations enacted pursuant thereto (36 CFR Chapter 1, Part 63).

  1.   Development affecting a coastal historic area shall avoid and otherwise minimize
       alteration or disturbance of the site unless the site's excavation will promote historical,
       archaeological, educational, or scientific understanding.

Management Authority and Administration

The enabling legislation of the Texas Historical Commission directs the agency to protect and
preserve the cultural resources of Texas. Cultural resources include archaeological sites,
historical sites, and shipwrecks on land or underwater. For projects strictly on private property,
the agency offers historic preservation advice. If the project requires a federal permit or involves
federal funding, regardless of the land ownership, THC applies federal guidelines and rules under
ï¿½106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.A. ï¿½470 et seq.). A permit is required
for the taking, altering, or destruction of cultural resources on public land. The Texas Antiquities
Code includes enforcement with misdemeanor criminal penalties (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
Chapter 191, ï¿½171) and injunctive relief (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Chapter 191, ï¿½172).
Members of the public also can file charges under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 191,
ï¿½173.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 4-89                           August 1996







The THC must comply with the policies in this category when adopting rules and issuing permits
under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 191, governing alteration of coastal historic
areas. The THC must comply with the policies in this category when issuing reviews under the
National Historic Preservation Act, ï¿½ 106 (16 U.S.C.A. ï¿½470f), and the regulations enacted
pursuant thereto (36 CFR Part 800).

The Texas Historical Commission regulates and protects all State Archeological Landmarks
under the Antiquities Code of Texas. The commission issues permits for this purpose. Civil and
criminal penalties are provided for unpermitted destruction, damage, modification, or alteration
of State Archeological Landmarks.

A State Archeological Landmark includes any cultural resource or site located in, on, or under
the surface of any lands belonging to or controlled by the state, including submerged lands, or
owned by any county, city, or other political subdivision of the state, as defined in the Texas
Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191, ï¿½191.003(4).

Through the consultation process, the federal agency and the state historic preservation officer
(SHPO) consider alternatives to the proposed federal undertaking to avoid or otherwise minimize
adverse impacts on both listed sites and eligible sites.

Exemptions

Permit for Destruction, Alteration, or Taking of a Coastal Historic Area. All landmarks
require a permit except nonpublic interior spaces of historical structures. The public interior
spaces which are not exempt are those which were originally intended for public use or those
which are of overriding importance to the public because of any significant historical,
architectural, cultural, or ceremonial value (13 TAC ï¿½41.22(a)(4)).

Review of a Federal Undertaking Affecting a Coastal Historic Area. The National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) calls for federal agencies to take historic properties into account in
their undertakings, and allows state consultation (through the THC) and public involvement in
historic preservation matfers. The term "undertaking" takes on a specific and important meaning
in the NHPA, and applies only to federal agencies.

"Undertaking" means any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character
or use of historic properties. The project, activity, or program must be under the direct or
indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency or licensed or assisted by a federal agency. Undertakings
include new and continuing projects, activities, or programs and any of their elements not
previously considered under ï¿½106 of the NHPA (36 CFR, Part 800).

Thus, if there is no direct or indirect federal involvement in a project, activity, or program, these
are not considered undertakings, and are exempted from regulation under the NHPA.

The Antiquities Code of Texas has jurisdiction over all state-owned or state-controlled lands, as
defined above. Actions, projects, activities or programs taking place on privately owned lands
are thus exempt from regulation under the Code.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part U 4-90                            August 1996







Variances

Permit for Destruction, Alteration, or Taking of a Coastal Historic Area. No power to
waive the responsibility of obtaining a permit is granted to the commission (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½191.054).

Review of a Federal Undertaking Affecting a Coastal Historic Area. None.

Monitorine and Enforcement

Permit for Destruction, Alteration, or Taking of a Coastal Historic Area. Permits are
usually granted for a period of two years or less (13 TAC ï¿½41.17(c)). Any member or agent of
the commission and any officer in charge of land owned by the state may, at any time, visit the
investigation site under permit and examine the permit, records, materials, and specimen being
recovered (13 TAC ï¿½41.18).

Failure to comply with the rules of the commission or the terms of a permit may result in the
cancellation of the permit by the commission and the immediate removal of all personnel and
equipment from the site (13 TAC ï¿½41.3).

Review of a Federal Undertaking Affecting a Coastal Historic Area. The Commission seeks
to ensure that all federal agencies proposing federal undertakings affecting listed and eligible
sites in Texas comply with the consultation requirements of the NI-PA and with any agreed
alternatives following from such consultations.

Agenev's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfv TCMP Policy

Permit for Destruction, Alteration, or Taking of a Coastal Historic Area. TEX. REV. CIV.
STAT. ANN. art. 6145-9 authorizes the commission to provide for a system of permits and
contracts for salvage of treasures embedded in the earth and the excavation or study of
archeological and historical sites and objects.

Review of a Federal Undertaking Affecting a Coastal Historic Area. Before approval of a
federal undertaking, the federal agency proposing the action must consult with the SHPO. The
federal agency is not obligated to adopt the alternatives or conditions the SHPO proposes but is
obligated to comply with applicable TCMP policies.













Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-91                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 16: TRANSPORTATION

State Avencv Action and Manaced Uses

TxDot - Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program (TEX. NAT. RES.
CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(d)(2))

Texas Transportation Commission approvals of plans for the location, construction, and
maintenance of the state highway system and public roads and of the location, construction, and
maintenance of individual state highway system projects.

Policies

TxDOT rules and project approvals under Texas Civil Statutes, articles 6663b and 6663c, and
Texas Civil Statutes, article 6674a et seq., governing transportation projects within the coastal
zone, shall comply with the policies in this category.

Transportation construction projects and maintenance programs within the coastal zone shall
comply with the policies in this category.

 A.   Pollution prevention procedures shall be incorporated into the construction and
       maintenance of transportation projects to minimize pollutant loading to coastal waters
       from erosion and sedimentation, use of pesticides and herbicides for maintenance of
       rights-of-way, and other pollutants from stormwater runoff.

 B.   Transportation projects shall be located at sites that to the greatest extent practicable
       avoid and otherwise minimize the potential for adverse effects from construction and
       maintenance of additional roads, bridges, causeways, and other development associated
       with the project; and direct release to CNRAs of pollutants from oil or hazardous
       substance spills, contaminated sediments or stormwater runoff.

 C.   Where practicable, transportation projects shall be located in existing rights-of-way or
       previously disturbed areas if necessary to avoid or minimize adverse effects.

 D.   Where practicable, transportation projects shall be located at sites at which future
       expansion will not require development in coastal wetlands except where such
       construction is determined to be essential for evacuation in the case of a natural disaster.

 E.   Construction and maintenance of transportation projects shall avoid the impoundment
       and draining of coastal wetlands. If impoundment or draining cannot be avoided, adverse
       effects to the impounded or drained wetlands shall be mitigated in accordance with the
       sequencing requirements of Policy Category 8.

 F.   Construction of transportation projects shall occur at sites and times selected to have the
       least adverse effects practicable on recreational uses of CNRAs and on spawning or
       nesting seasons or seasonal migrations of terrestrial or aquatic species. i


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part H 4-92                           August 1996







  G. Beach-quality sand from maintenance of roadways adjacent to Gulf beaches shall be
       beneficially used by placement on Gulf beaches where practicable. Where placement on
       Gulf beaches is not practicable, the material shall be placed in critical dune areas.

Management Authoritv and Administration

TxDOT is responsible for statewide transportation plans and activities, including highways,
aviation, mass transportation, railroads, high-speed rail, and water traffic under the authority of
Texas Civil Statutes, articles 6663b and 6663c, and Texas Civil Statutes article 6674a et seq.
Specific activities include the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of the state
highway and public road system (including associated bridges, culverts, and rights-of-way) and
coordinating the planning, environmental review, land acquisition, and construction activities for
general aviation non-reliever airports. TxDOT rules and project approvals governing
transportation projects within the coastal zone must comply with the policies in this category.

Title 43, TAC, Chapter 11 sets out rules for highway planning, construction, operation and
maintenance; interagency coordination and public involvement; and procedures for
environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. Mechanisms to manage the
planning and development of highways and roads are included in the Procedures Manual for
Highway Project Planning and Development, which also sets up coordination procedures for all
environmental concerns. Standards specifications include measures for erosion and
sedimentation control, waste disposal, earthwork, and revegetation during construction. Funds
can be withheld if a project does not meet specifications. Procedures for maintenance of
highways are included in the Maintenance and Operations Division Procedures Manual.

Planning, design, construction, and improvement activities of general aviation airports are
reviewed in accordance with NEPA and FAA guidelines, and appropriate environmental permits
must be obtained prior to implementation. All airport construction projects must adhere to
standard FAA construction guidelines and specifications, which also include measures for
erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater runoff prevention.

The Texas Transportation Commission is authorized to locate, construct maintain, and operate
the state highway system (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6674w-1). This authority includes
the power of eminent domain (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6674w-3).

Exemptions

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. None.

Variances

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. None.

Monitoring and Enforcement

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. Not applicable.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-93                        August 1996







Aaencv's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

Transportation Construction Project or Maintenance Program. The Texas Transportation
Commission is required to conduct environmental reviews of all highway projects not otherwise
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.A. ï¿½4321 et seq.). The
environmental review process provides for public comment, the analysis of project alternatives,
the evaluation of direct and indirect effects, and the mitigation of environmental harm (TEX.
REV. CIV. STAT. art. 6673g and 43 TAC ï¿½ï¿½11.80-11.90).

The Commission is also required to adopt a memorandum of understanding with each state
agency that has responsibilities for the protection of the natural environment so as to coordinate
the review of the environmental impacts of highway projects.







































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-94                        August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 17: EMISSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS

State Aeencv Action and Managed Uses

TNRCC - Rules governing emissions of air pollutants
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2051(b)(1))

Policies

TNRCC rules under Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, governing emissions of air
pollutants, shall comply with regulations at Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, adopted
pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 United States Code Annotated, ï¿½7401 et seq., to protect and
enhance air quality in the coastal area so as to protect CNRAs and promote the public health,
safety, and welfare.

Management Authority and Administration

Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, also referred to as the Texas Clean Air Act,
establishes the authority of the TNRCC to adopt any rules necessary to carry out its duties under
the Act, including the establishment of air quality standards and of a permitting program for air
emissions. The TNRCC is also designated as the agency responsible for developing a
comprehensive plan for proper control of air pollution sources.

Regulations in 30 TAC Chapters  111-114 address the control of air pollution from particulate
matter, sulfur compounds, toxic materials, and mobile sources. Title 30, Chapter 115, addresses
the control of air pollution from volatile organic compounds such as petroleum refining and
petrochemical processes, solvent-using processes, and other miscellaneous industrial sources.
Title 30, Chapter 116, sets forth permit requirements for new construction or modification,
including detailed information concerning permit requirements, responsibility for obtaining a
permit or exemption, consideration for granting permits to construct and operate facilities,
special conditions, exempted facilities, and emergency orders for damaged facilities.



















Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-95                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 18: APPROPRIATIONS OF WATER

State AMencv Action and Manaced Uses

TNRCC - New Permit for an Annual Appropriation of 5,000 or More Acre-Feet of Water
Within the Program Boundary or 10,000 or More Acre-Feet of Water Outside the Program
Boundary but Within 200 Stream Miles of the Coast
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(0(8))

No person may appropriate any state water or begin construction of any work designed for the
storage, taking, or diversion of water without first obtaining a permit from the TNRCC to make
the appropriation (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½ 11.121).

TNRCC - Amendment to a Water Permit for an Increase in an Annual Appropriation of
5,000 or More Acre-Feet of Water Within the Program Boundary or 10,000 or More Acre-
Feet of Water Outside the Program Boundary but Within 200 Stream Miles of the Coast
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(0(9))

All holders of permits must obtain permission to change the use, the place of use, purpose of use,
point of diversion, rate of diversion, acreage to be irrigated, or otherwise alter a water right
(TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½11.122).

TNRCC - Declaration of an Emergency and Request for an Emergency Release of Water
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053(0(7))

Upon a determination by the TNRCC that an emergency exists, the Texas Water Development
Board may release unappropriated water and other water of the state stored in any facility
acquired by and under the control of the board to relieve any emergency condition arising from
drought, severe water shortage, or public calamity (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½16.195).
Facilities from which water may be released that can effectively relieve the emergency
conditions arising from drought, severe water shortage, or public calamity.

Policies

The TNRCC rules and authorizations under Texas Water Code, Chapter 11, governing review
and action on applications for new permits or amendments proposing changes to existing permits
for diversions or impoundments of state water within 200 stream miles of the coast, and TNRCC
rules and approvals governing creation of districts and issuance of district bonds for levee and
flood control projects within the coastal zone, shall comply with the policies in this category.

Impoundments and diversion of state water within 200 stream miles of the coast, to commence
from the mouth of the river thence inland, shall comply with the policies in this category.

 A. The TNRCC shall administer the law so as to promote the judicious use and maximum
       conservation and protection of the quality of the environment and the natural resources of
      the state. It is the public policy of the state to provide for the conservation and


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-96                        August 1996







                  development of the state's natural resources, including:

Is i~~~~.  the control, storage, preservation, and distribution of the state's storm and
                        floodwaters and the waters of its rivers and streams for irrigation, power, and
                        other useful purposes;

                 Hi.    the reclamation and irrigation of the state's arid, semiarid, and other land needing
                        irrigation;

                 Mi.    the reclamation and drainage of the state's overflowed land and other land needing
                        drainage;

                 iv.    the conservation and development of its forest, water, and hydroelectric power;

                 V.     the navigation of the state's inland and coastal waters; and

                 vi.    the maintenance of a proper ecological environment of the bays and estuaries of
                        Texas and the health of related living marine resources.

           B.   In this policy category, "beneficial inflows" means a salinity, nutrient, and sediment
                 loading regime adequate to maintain an ecologically sound environment in the receiving
                 bay and estuary system that is necessary for the maintenance of productivity of
                 economically important and ecologically characteristic sport or commercial fish and
                 shellfish species and estuarine life upon which such fish and shellfish are dependent.

           C.   In its consideration of an application for a permit to store, take, or divert water, the
                 TNRCC shall assess the effects, if any, of the issuance of the permit on the bays and
                 estuaries of Texas. For permits issued within an area that is within 200 river miles of the
                 coast, to commence from the mouth of the river thence inland, the TNRCC shall include
                 in the permit, to the greatest extent practicable when considering all public interests,
                 those conditions considered necessary to maintain beneficial inflows to any affected bay
                 and estuary system.

           D.   For the purposes of making a determination under paragraph (C), the TNRCC shall
                 consider among other factors:

                 1.     the need for periodic freshwater inflows to supply nutrients and modify salinity to
                        preserve the sound environment of the bay or estuary, using any available
                        information, including studies and plans specified in and other studies considered
                        by the TNRCC to be reliable; together with existing circumstances, natural or
                        otherwise, that might prevent the conditions imposed from producing benefits;

                 ii.    the ecology and productivity of the affected bay and estuary system;

                 iii.    the expected effects on the public welfare of not including in the permit some or
                        all of the conditions considered necessary to maintain the beneficial inflows to the
                        affected bay or estuary;

         Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 4-97                           August 1996







       iv.    the quantity of water requested and the proposed use of water by the applicant, as
               well as the needs of those who would be served by the applicant;

       V.     the expected effects on the public welfare of the failure to issue all or part of the
               permit being considered; and

       vi.    for the purposes of this policy, the declarations as to preferences for competing
               uses of water as found in Texas Water Code, ï¿½ 11.024 and ï¿½ 11.033, as well as the
              public policy statement in paragraph (A).

  E.   In its consideration of an application to store, take, or divert water, the TNRCC shall
       consider the effect, if any, of the issuance of the permit on existing instream uses and
       water quality of the stream or river to which the application applies. The TNRCC shall
       also consider the effect, if any, of the issuance of the permit on fish and wildlife habitats.

  F.   On receipt of an application for a permit to store, take, or divert water, the TNRCC shall
       send a copy of the permit application and any subsequent amendments to the TPWD. In
       making a final decision on any application for a permit, the TNRCC, in addition to other
       information, evidence, and testimony presented, shall consider al information, evidence,
       or testimony presented by the TPWD and the TWDB.

 G.   Permit conditions relating to beneficial inflows to affected bays and estuaries and
       instream uses may be suspended by the TNRCC if the TNRCC finds that an emergency
       exists and cannot practically be resolved in other ways. Before the TNRCC suspends a
       permit, it must give written notice to the T`PWD of the proposed suspension. The
       TNRCC shall give the TPWD an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed
       suspension within 72 hours from such time and the TNRCC shall consider those
       comments before issuing its order imposing the suspension.

 H.   In its consideration of an application for a permit under this policy, the TNRCC shall
       assess the effects, if any, of the issuance of the permit on water quality in coastal waters.
       In its consideration of an application for a permit to store, take, or divert water in excess
       of 5,000 acre-feet per year, the commnission shall assess the effects, if any, of the issuance
       of the permit on fish and wildlife habitats and may require the applicant to take
       reasonable actions to mitigate adverse effects on such habitat. In determining whether to
       require an applicant to mitigate adverse effects on a habitat, the TNRCC may consider
       any net benefit to habitat produced by the project. The TNRCC shall offset against any
       mitigation required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Code of
       Federal Regulations, Title 33, ï¿½ï¿½320-330, any mitigation authorized by this policy.

    1. Unappropriated water and other water of the state stored in any facility acquired by and
       under the control of the TWDB may be released without charge to relieve any emergency
       condition arising from drought, severe water shortage, or other calamity, if the TNRCC
       first determines the existence of the emergency and requests the TWDB to release the
       water.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part HI 4-98                          August 1996







  J.   Five percent of the annual firm yield of water in any reservoir and associated works
       constructed with state financial participation within 200 river miles of the coast, to
       commence from the mouth of the river thence inland, is appropriated to the TPWD for
       use to make releases to bays and estuaries and for instreant uses, and the TNRCC shall
       issue permits for this water to the TPWD under procedures adopted by the TNRCC. This
       applies only to reservoirs and associated works on which construction begins on or after
       September 1, 1985. This policy does not limit or repeal any other authority of or law
       relating to the TPWD or the TNRCC.

  K.   The TWDB, in coordination with the TNRCC and TPWD, shall identify ways to assist in
       providing flows to meet instream needs, including protection of water quality, protection
       of terrestrial or aquatic wildlife habitat, and bay and estuary inflow needs, in the
       implementation of the Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Code, Chapter 15, Subchapter K.
       This may include, but not be limited to, the purchase by the TPWD and/or the TWDB of
       water rights deposited in the Texas Water Bank in order to provide for existing instreanm
       uses and beneficial inflows to bays and estuaries if funds are available and such purchase
       is not prohibited by law. The TNRCC shall facilitate the approval of any necessary
       permit amendments to achieve this purpose.

  L.   An applicant for a new or amended water right permit shall submit a water conservation
       plan in accordance with 30 TAC ï¿½295.9 (relating to Conservation Plan). The TNRCC
       shall consider the information contained in the conservation plan in determining whether
       any feasible alternative to the proposed appropriation exists, whether the proposed
       amount to be appropriated as measured at the point of diversion is reasonable and
       necessary for the proposed use, the term and other conditions of the water right and to
       ensure that reasonable diligence will be used to avoid waste and achieve water
       conservation. Based upon its review, the TNRCC may deny or grant, in whole or in part,
       the requested appropriation.

Management Authority and Administration

The TNRCC has sole authority for the regulation and management of surface water rights in
Texas, as authorized by Chapter 11 of the Texas Water Code. The TNRCC rules and
authorizations governing review and actions on applications for new permits, or amendments
proposing changes to existing permits for diversion or impoundments of state water within 200
stream miles of the coast, must comply with the policies in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(r). TNRCC rules
and approval governing the creation of districts and issuance of district bonds for levee and flood
control projects within the coastal zone must also comply with these policies.

Title 30, Chapter 288, of the Texas Administrative Code establishes guidelines and minimum
requirements for water conservation plans required by the TNRCC regulatory programs,
including water rights administration. Title 30, Chapter 295, contains content and notice
requirements for a water right application. Title 30, Chapter 299, establishes regulations to
provide for the safe construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of dams. Title 30, Chapter
301, contains procedures for authorizing the construction of a levee or other improvement,
including channel improvements, drainage works, and other projects on, along, or near any
stream in order to control, regulate, or otherwise change the floodwater of the stream.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-99                          August 1996







Title 30, Chapter 297, sets forth conditions, restrictions, limitations, and/or provisions reasonably
necessary for TNRCC approval or denial of a new or amended water right permit and defines the
limits and responsibilities of all water right holders. For water right applications within 200
stream miles of the coast, the TNRCC must include in the water right permit those conditions
necessary to maintain beneficial inflows to any affected bay and estuary system. On an
application to amend a water right, including an amendment for the sale or transfer of conserved
water, the commission must consider the instream needs for water quality, aquatic and riparian
habitat, bays and estuaries, and other public purposes. The TNRCC may reserve from
appropriation water necessary to protect these instream uses by placing limitations and
conditions on the amended water right. These may include stream flow restrictions to protect
existing water right holders, water quality, aquatic fish and wildlife habitat, inflows for bays and
estuaries, and recreational uses; habitat mitigation measures; and water conservation measures.

The commission regulates all waters of the state, including every bay or arm of the Gulf of
Mexico and including any water imported from any source outside the boundaries of the state for
use in the state and which is transported through the beds and banks of any navigable stream
within the state or by utilizing any facilities owned or operated by the state (TEX. WATER
CODE ANN. ï¿½11.021).

Exemptions

New Permit for an Annual Appropriation of Water and Amendment to a Water Permit. A
person who is drilling and producing petroleum and conducting operations associated with
drilling and producing petroleum may take a certain amount of state water from the Gulf of
Mexico and adjacent bays and arms of the Gulf of Mexico without a permit (TEX. WATER
CODE ANN. ï¿½11.142). Without obtaining a permit a person engaged in mariculture on land
may take a certain amount of state water from the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent bays and arms of
the Gulf of Mexico (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½11.1421).

Declaration of an Emergency and Request for an Emergency Release of Water. None.

Variances

New Permit for an Annual Appropriation of Water and Amendment to a Water Permit.
None.

Declaration of an Emergency and Request for an Emergency Release of Water. None.

Monitorina and Enforcement

New Permit for an Annual Appropriation of Water and Amendment to a Water Permit.
Permit conditions may be suspended by the commission ifan emergency exists and cannot
practically be solved in other ways (TEX. WATER CODE ï¿½ 11.148). Persons unlawfully using
state water may be subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per day (TEX. WATER CODE ANN.
ï¿½11.082).



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-100                        August 1996







Declaration of an Emergency and Request for an Emergency Release of Water. The Texas
Parks and Wildlife Commission and other resource agencies of the state may monitor for
emergency conditions and may petition the commission for an emergency determination where
circumstances warrant.

Agencv's Authority to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfy TCMP Policy

New Permit for an Annual Appropriation of Water and Amendment to a Water Permit.
The TNRCC may require amendment of the application, maps, or other materials to achieve
necessary compliance (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½11.129).

Declaration of an Emergency and Request for an Emergency Release of Water. Where
emergency conditions are adversely affecting an estuary or other coastal natural resource area, an
emergency determination may be issued to address such adverse effects.






































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part H 4-101                      August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 19: LEVEE AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS

State Agencv Action and Manaaed Uses                                                                     0

TNRCC - Levee Improvement or Flood Control Projects
(TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½33.2053()(5))

The TNRCC must approve construction, attempted construction, or maintenance of any levee or
other such improvement on, along, or near any stream of this state that is subject to floods,
freshets, or overflows so as to control, regulate, or otherwise change the floodwater of the stream
(TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½{16.233). The TNRCC must approve levee improvement district
proposed plans of reclamation, which include the application filed by a levee improvement
district. The application is composed of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers district engineer's
reclamation report, which shall include economic data, maps, profiles, and results of land
surveys, and the preliminary plan for levees or other improvements (30 TAC ï¿½301.4).

Policies

TNRCC rules and approvals for the levee construction, modification, drainage, reclamation,
channelization, or flood- or floodwater-control projects, pursuant to the Texas Water Code,
ï¿½ 16.236, shall comply with the policies in this category.

  !.   Drainage, reclamation, channelization, levee construction or modification, or flood- or
       floodwater-control infrastructure projects shall be designed, constructed, and maintained
       to avoid the impoundment and draining of coastal wetlands to the greatest extent
       practicable. If impoundment or draining of coastal wetlands cannot be avoided, adverse
       effects to the wetlands shall be mitigated in accordance with the sequencing requirements
       found in the critical areas policy.

Management Authority and Administration

TNRCC rules and approvals for levee construction or modification, drainage, reclamation,
channelization, or flood or floodwater control projects, pursuant to Texas Water Code ï¿½ 16.236,
must comply with the policies in this category. Texas Water Code ï¿½ 16.236 requires that the
TNRCC approve plans before anyone can construct or maintain a levee or other such
improvement on, along, or near any state stream that is subject to floods, freshets, or overflows in
order to control, regulate, or otherwise change the floodwater of the stream. 30 TAC Chapter
301 establishes rules for TNRCC review and approval of levee district reclamation plans and
plans for levees and other improvements, such as channel improvements and drainage works.
The TNRCC may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the following specific
plans.

1. Preliminary Engineering Plans for Levees or Other Improvements Pursuant to Texas
Water Code Chapter 16. These plans should clearly reflect the design concept and indicate
how the design was developed, including the location and extent of the proposed works; the
location and ownership of similar existing works such as levees, channels, reservoirs, and dams;
ownership of properties that are within or adjacent to, or that may be affected by, the project; and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-102                        August 1996







           certain flood data. The purpose of the review of these plans is to determine whether a project
O         ~~~appears safe and is compatible with existing hydraulic conditions in the area. 30 TAC ï¿½301.34
           establishes criteria for approval of preliminary engineering plans. These include structural
           integrity; compatibility with existing hydraulic conditions; consideration of possible deleterious
           effects; safety to ensure that the project will not increase flooding or divert waters in such a way
           that any person's life or property will be endangered or subjected to significantly increased
           flooding or will create a public hazard; protection of third parties' rights; and consideration of
           topographic and hydrographic conditions.

           2. Final Engineering Plans and Specifications for Levees or Other Improvements Pursuant
           to Texas Water Code ï¿½16.236. Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, ï¿½301.38 establishes
           specific requirements for final channel excavation plans and final levee and dike construction
           plans.

           3. As-Built Plans. These are the engineering plans and specifications for levees or other
           improvements that reflect the structures as actually built and for which preliminary plans were
           approved.

           4. Proposed Plans of Reclamation. A proposed plan of reclamation is an application filed by a
           levee improvement district and composed of the district engineer's reclamation report. Upon
           approval, a proposed plan becomes a plan of reclamation.

           Projects must be inspected during construction and receive final certification by the TNRCC that
.         ~~~they are in compliance with approved plans. Failure to comply with approved plans and
           specifications during construction, enlargement, repair, or alteration may result in revocation of
          the approval and/or civil penalties. The TNRCC may order the structure removed to eliminate a
           safety hazard to life and property.

           Exemp~tions

           Levee Improvement or Flood Control Projects. No commission approval is required for dams
           constructed by a person on his/her own property which impounds or contains 200 acre-feet of
          water or less, certain levees within the corporate limits of a city or town or within a political
           subdivision which has qualified for the National Flood Insurance Program as authorized by the
          National Flood Service, or projects implementing soil and water conservation practices approved
          by a soil and water conservation district (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½ 16.236).

          Texas Water Code ï¿½ 16.23 6 exempts the following projects.

             I1.   Dams permitted by the TNRCC, recognized as valid by final decree in a proceeding
                  under Subchapter G, Chapter I11 of the Texas Water Code or authorized by Texas Water
                  Code ï¿½11I.142.

            2.   Levees or other improvements within the corporate limits of a city or town, provided (a)
                  plans of construction and/or maintenance are approved by the city or town, and (b) the
                  city or town requires that plans be in substantial compliance with rules and standards
                  adopted by the TNRCC.

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-103                          August 1996







  3.   Levees or improvements within the boundaries of any political subdivision which has
       qualified for the National Flood Insurance Program, provided (a) plans for the
       construction and/or maintenance are approved by the political subdivision, and (b) the
       political subdivision requires that such plans be in substantial compliance with rules and
       standards adopted by the TNRCC.

  4.   Projects implementing soil and water conservation practices in an approved conservation
       plan, provided that the governing board of a soil and water conservation district finds that
       the practices do not significantly affect stream flooding conditions on, along, or near a
       state stream.

The TNRCC should be notified about these projects but is not required to approve the plans.
Exempt projects located within the corporate limits of a city or town or within the boundaries of
a political subdivision can be appealed by potentially affected parties to the TNRCC. If the
appeal is accepted by the TNRCC for a hearing, the project is reviewed according to the TNRCC
procedural rules (30 TAC Chapter 301). The commission regulates all activities specified in
paragraph 1 within the state.

Variances

Levee Improvement or Flood Control Projects. Any person seeking a variance is required to
file a petition with the commission. A person must have demonstrated continuous and substantial
progress toward compliance before the date of petition (30 TAC ï¿½ 101.15).

Monitoring and Enforcement

Levee Improvement or Flood Control Projects. Representatives of the executive director of
the commission may enter any land or go on any water with appropriate equipment for the
purpose of surveillance and inspection with reference to the proposed location of levees or other
improvements (30 TAC ï¿½301.2). Persons in violation of an approval requirement are subject to
civil penalties of $100 per day (TEX. WATER CODE ANN. ï¿½16.236).

A2encv's Authoritv to Regulate or Condition Listed Action to Satisfv TCMP Policv

Levee Improvement or Flood Control Projects. The executive director may request any
additional pertinent information from the applicant which he deems necessary to evaluate the
effects of a proposed project before the submission of the application to the commission (30
TAC ï¿½301.35).











Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-104                         August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 20: POLICY FOR MAJOR ACTIONS

  1.   For purposes of these policy categories, "major action" means an individual agency or
          subiviionaction listed in ï¿½505.1 1 of this title (relating to Actions and Rules Subject to
       the Coastal Management Program), ï¿½506.12 of this title (relating to Federal Actions
       Subject to the Coastal Management Program), or ï¿½505.60 of this title (relating to Local
       Government Actions Subject to the Coastal Management Program), relating to an activity
       for which a federal environmental impact statement under the National Environmental
       Policy Act, 42 United States Code Annotated, ï¿½4321 et seq. is required.

  2.   Prior to taking a major action, the agencies and subdivisions having jurisdiction over the
       activity shall meet and coordinate their major actions relating to the activity. The
       agencies and subdivisions shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consider the cumulative
       and secondary adverse effects, as described in the federal environmental impact
       assessment process, of each major action relating to the activity.

  3.   No agency or subdivision shall take a major action that is inconsistent with the goals and
       policies of this chapter. In addition, an agency or subdivision shall avoid and otherwise
       minimize the cumulative adverse effects to CNRAs of each of its major actions relating to
       the activity.































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-105                           August 1996







POLICY CATEGORY 21: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES

    IAgency and subdivision rules and ordinances subject to the TCMIP goals and policies, as I
       provided in 31 TAC ï¿½50 1.10O (relating to Compliance with Goals and Policies), shall:

       A.     require applicants to provide information necessary for an agency or subdivision
              to make an informed decision on a proposed action listed in 31 TAC ï¿½505.11
              (relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program) or 31
              TAC ï¿½505.60 (relating to Local Government Actions Subject to the Coastal
              Management Program);

       B.     identify the monitoring established to ensure activities authorized by actions listed
              in 31 TAC ï¿½505.11 (relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal
              Management Program) or 31 TAC ï¿½ 505.60 (relating to Local Government
              Actions Subject to the Coastal Management Program) comply with all applicable
              requirements;

       C.     identify circumstances in which agencies and subdivisions have the authority to
              issue variances from standards or requirements for the protection of CNRAs,
              including the grounds for granting variances; and

       D.     take into account the national interest as defined in the Texas Submission
              Document, Chapter Nine.

 2.   A threshold for referral adopted by an agency under the provisions of 31 TAC Chapter
       505 (relating to Council procedures for consistency reviews) of this title shall be set at a
       level that is reasonably calculated to ensure that actions that may have unique and
       significant adverse effects on CNRAs are above the threshold for referral.






















Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-106                         August 1996







E.     Advisory Policies

The TCMP recommends that the following policies be observed within the TCMP boundary.

Planning

P-1 Local governments are encouraged to protect CNRAs and guide development to areas
       where the necessary infrastructure already exists.

P-2    Local governments are encouraged to develop comprehensive plans or regional master
       plans that set appropriate density limits in specified coastal areas and allow for adequate
       open space.

P-3    Local governments are encouraged to develop comprehensive plans, economic
       development plans, or master plans that address the appropriate location and design of
       tourist attractions.

P-4 Local governments are encouraged to develop comprehensive plans, master plans, or
       other appropriate means to discourage development in designated coastal hazard areas
       and other areas specifically protected under the TCMP.

P-5   The appropriate state agencies are encouraged to pursue or provide funding for studying
       the feasibility of transporting sediment impounded behind watershed dams to the
       estuaries and the Gulf of Mexico.

P-6    Local and regional governments are encouraged to develop outdoor recreation plans or
       master plans that allow for the orderly and environmentally sustainable development of
       outdoor recreation opportunities necessary for coastal citizens and tourists.

P-7    State-designated regional planning agencies are encouraged to develop planning guides or
       regional plans that address the overall growth of the coastal zone, area-wide problems,
       and issues of common concern.

Acquisition

A-I    State agencies, local governments, federal agencies, and private nonprofit entities are
       strongly encouraged to acquire coastal lands (including coastal wetlands) to conserve
       CNRAs.

Conservation/Preservation

CP-1 Local governments are encouraged to develop plans or other mechanisms that designate
       areas for preservation of CNRAs and for educational and scientific research on CNRAs
       where commercial development will be limited to activities supporting these management
       functions (e.g., ecotourism).



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-107                         August 1996







CP-2 Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to work cooperatively with
       landowners to further the goals and policies of the TCMP, including considering the use
       of economic incentives whenever possible.

CP-3 Local governments are strongly encouraged to establish water conservation programs.

CP4   Consideration should be given to the reuse of dredged material disposal sites for such
       purposes as the development of public parks, recreation areas, bird sanctuaries, or other
       wildlife habitat.

Restoration

R-l    Restoration of previously degraded or destroyed coastal wetlands is strongly encouraged.

R-2   Restoration and stabilization of eroding shorelines with vegetation is encouraged.

R-3   Restoration of urban waterfront areas is encouraged.

Research/Education

RE-I  Research and education about living and other natural resources of the coast, including
       terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat and coastal processes, is encouraged as long as it
       does not adversely affect CNRAs.                               is

RE-2 Research on coastal management issues (e.g., cumulative and secondary adverse effects
       of resource uses) and conflicts between competing uses is strongly encouraged.

Pollution Prevention/Recycling

PP-I Source reduction, recycling, and pollution prevention are strongly encouraged.

PP-2 Waterfront facility operators are encouraged to establish recycling programs and to provide
       recycling containers on the premises.

Coastal Hazard Areas

CH-1 Designated coastal hazard areas should be used passively, such as for parks or open
       space, rather than for intensive development.

CH-2 Floodplain and watershed management and other nonstructural solutions to flooding
       should receive preference over the erection of dams or flood control structures.

CH-3 Environmentally compatible restoration of eroded coastal shorelines is encouraged.

CH-4  Where effective, sediment bypassing is encouraged in the construction and retrofitting of
       dams on rivers that flow into the coastal zone, and at new and existing jetties, groins, and
       other structures that interrupt sediment transport to the coastal sand budget.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-108                        August 1996







CH-5 Removal of existing erosion response structures having a negative impact on natural
       coastal processes is encouraged.

CH-6 Activities that accelerate the natural coastal erosion process or increase coastal flood
       hazards should be avoided.

CH-7 The placement of sand on Gulf beaches (e.g., from the maintenance of roadways or public
       rights-of-way) where it can benefit the coastal sand budget is encouraged.

CH-8 Local governments and state and federal agencies, in issuing approvals for or undertaking
       coastal and shore protection projects, are encouraged to require a monitoring program to
       study the effects of the projects on CNRAs and natural coastal processes.

CH-9 Local governments are encouraged to develop long-range plans for financing and
       executing beach nourishment projects.

CH-lIO The use of setbacks by local governments for new construction in eroding coastal shore
       areas is encouraged.

CH-lI I The relocation of structures threatened by coastal shoreline erosion is encouraged.

CH-12 Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to avoid investing in infrastructure
       or facilities that support development in critical erosion areas.

CH- 1 3 In areas of subsidence, local governments and state agencies are encouraged to ensure
       that critical areas and coastal shore areas are maintained by appropriate management of
       groundwater resources.

CH--14 Construction in washover areas is discouraged.

CH- 15 The minimizing of boat wakes to reduce coastal shoreline erosion is encouraged.

Coastal Barriers

GB-I Construction on coastal barriers should avoid adverse effects on critical areas, Gulf
       beaches, critical dune areas, coastal hazard areas, and washover areas.

CB-2 Construction on coastal barriers should be sited to avoid or minimize the potential for
       adverse effects on critical areas, Gulf beaches, critical dune areas, coastal hazard areas, or
       washover areas.

CB-3 Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to restrict the expenditure of state
       and local funds for infrastructure on undeveloped coastal barriers not within the Coastal
       Barrier Resources System or otherwise protected areas.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-109                         August 1996







Coastal Shore Areas

CSA-1         Local governments are encouraged to protect coastal shore areas that provide              0
               habitat protection, protect uplands from erosion and coastal flooding, prevent
               degradation of coastal water quality from stormwater runoff, and protect public
               access.

CSA-2         Local governments are encouraged to permit construction only in shore areas
              where it will not adversely affect critical areas, Gulf beaches, critical dune areas,
              coastal hazard areas, or washover areas.

CSA-3         Runoff from construction located within coastal shore areas should be controlled
              to avoid adverse effects on critical areas, Gulf beaches, critical dune areas, coastal
              hazard areas, and washover areas.

CSA-4         Local governments are encouraged to promote the use of vegetated buffers
              between construction within coastal shore areas and critical areas, Gulf beaches,
              critical dune areas, coastal hazard areas, or washover areas.

CSA-5         Construction within coastal shore areas should be sited to avoid or minimize the
              potential for adverse effects on critical areas, Gulf beaches, critical dune areas,
              coastal hazard areas, or washover areas.

CSA-6         Local governments are encouraged to consider sea level rise (projected for 50
              years) in designing and constructing new development.

Water Quality

WQ-1 Persons engaged in agriculture are encouraged to employ best management practices to
       prevent nonpoint-source pollution.

WQ-2 Local governments are encouraged to use best management practices to avoid or
       minimize nonpoint-source pollution from urban areas.

WQ-3 Reduced use of pesticides and fertilizers for agriculture and in residential and
       commercial areas is encouraged to reduce contamination of surface waters.

Public Access/Recreation

PA-I The recreational and conservation potential of surplus federal lands near CNRAs should
       be given priority when a decision on the disposition of the land is being made.

PA-2 Local governments are encouraged to improve public access to bay shores.

PA-3  Safe public access for fishing in coastal waters from bridge ramps is encouraged.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-110                        August 1996







PA-4 Boaters are encouraged to avoid adversely affecting submerged aquatic vegetation and
       coastal wetlands (e.g., propwashing and scarring).

PA-5 The use of personal motorized craft in a manner that will adversely affect critical areas is
       discouraged.

Visual/Scenic Access

V-1 Provisions for scenic buffer areas around active industrial sites in or near CNRAs are
       encouraged.

V-2   Visual compatibility of new facilities/activities in or near CNRAs with surrounding
       natural resources and development is encouraged (e.g., scale, height, materials, color,
       texture, and geometry of building and site design).

V-3   Scenic vistas of the Gulf, beaches, wetlands, and other CNRAs should be preserved.

V-4   Structures which are visually compatible with natural surroundings should be utilized in
       recreational areas (e.g., building and grounds design, materials, and color) in or near
       CNRAs.

V-5   Removal of abandoned structures from CNRAs is encouraged.


Fisheries Management

F-1 Designation of artificial reef development zones is encouraged.

Construction/Development

CD-1 Drainage plans and construction measures for industrial, commercial, and residential
       development in or near CNRAs should provide for the lessening or elimination of
       erosion, water quality degradation, and other negative impacts on adjacent CNRAs.

CD-2 Design and construction options which promote dune creation, dune vegetation, or
       revegetation of coastal wetlands are encouraged.

CD-3 The use of marsh buggies in critical areas is discouraged.

CD4 Locating new nuclear energy facilities and nuclear fuel processing facilities outside the
       TCMP boundary is encouraged because proximity to coastal waters increases exposure to
       hurricanes, tidal surges, and other coastal hazards that could damage such facilities and
       create the risk of contamination of CNRAs.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-111                          August 1996







CD-5 In siting residential development, developers and builders are encouraged to locate
       structures away from designated coastal hazard areas and to provide a buffer between
       development and coastal shore areas.

CD-6  Persons engaged in industrial, commercial, and residential development and associated
       activities in the coastal zone are encouraged to locate such development and activities in
       areas where adequate human resources and infrastructure already exist.

CD-7  The provision of buffer areas around CNRAs to protect the resource and enhance the
       visual compatibility of development is encouraged.

CD-8  Persons engaged in development and construction in the coastal zone are encouraged to
       reduce the discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) during construction by the use of
       erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) which are approved
       under the EPA NPDES stormwater control program.

CD-9 Persons engaged in development and construction in the coastal zone are encouraged to
       avoid activities that contribute to erosion and sediment loss.

CD-lIO Persons engaged in development or construction in the coastal zone are encouraged to
       preserve areas that provide important water quality benefits or that are necessary to
       maintain riparian areas and aquatic life.

CD-i I1 Persons, local governments, and state and federal agencies engaged in development or
       construction in the coastal zone are encouraged to protect the integrity of water bodies
       and natural drainage systems.

CD-12 Persons, local governments, and state and federal agencies engaged in development and
       construction in the coastal zone are encouraged to reduce erosion and retain sediment on-
       site during and after construction.

CD- 1 3 Local governments and state and federal agencies charged with regulating construction
       and other development are encouraged to conduct a cost/benefit analysis comparing the
       economic benefits of the development with its economic costs, including the
       environmental costs resulting from any adverse effects of the development on CNRAs.

Silviculture/Agriculture

SA- 1  Persons engaged in agriculture in the coastal zone are encouraged to implement the range
       and pasture components of a Conservation Management System as defined in the Field
       Office Technical Guide of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service by
       applying the progressive planning approach to reduce soil erosion.

SA-2  Persons engaged in silviculture are encouraged to plan and operate normal ongoing
       forestry activities (including harvesting, road design and construction, site preparation
       and regeneration, and chemical management) to adequately protect aquatic functions of0
       forested coastal wetlands.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 4-112                        August 1996







SA-3  Persons engaged in silviculture and agriculture are encouraged to use best management
       practices developed by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas Agricultural
       Experiment Station, Texas Forest Service, State Soil and Water Conservation Board, and
       USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to avoid and minimize adverse effects on
       CNTRAs.

















































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 4-113                        August 1996







                                      CHAPTER FIVE.
                ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH PROGRAM POLICIES


A. Introduction

       The TCMP is implemented through agencies' and subdivisions' existing legal authorities.
Each agency or subdivision which exercises a networked authority is legally bound to comply
with the goals and policies of the TCMP. This obligation is set out in ï¿½33.205(a) of the Act:

       "An agency or subdivision that takes an agency or subdivision action listed in
        ï¿½33.2051 or ï¿½33.2053 that may adversely affect a coastal natural resource area
       shall comply with the goals and policies of the coastal management program."

       The Act and Council rules identify the agencies and their authorities that are networked
into the TCMP. This enhances enforceability of the TCMP by clearly delineating the scope of
the TCMP. Section 33.2051 of the Act lists the permits and other individual authorizations that
are subject to this requirement. Adoption and amendment of rules governing these
authorizations, as well as certain other rules, are listed in ï¿½33.2053 and also constitute actions
subject to this requirement. Chapter 501 includes citations for the statutes under which these
authorizations are issued and these rules are adopted.

B. Consistencv of Avencv Rules: the Council's Primary Tool

       The Council has the authority and ability to review proposed permits and other individual
agency actions listed in ï¿½33.2051 for compliance with the TCMP. However, the Council's
primary means of enforcing the goals and policies of the TCMP will be review and certification
of the agency rules listed in ï¿½33.2053. The Council will certify agency rules that "incorporate or
otherwise require compliance with" the goals and policies. Because an agency must comply with
its own rules, incorporating the goals and policies into agency rules ensures that the agency will
exercise its networked authorities consistent with the TCMP. Simply put, if an agency's rules are
consistent, then its actions should be consistent.

       To encourage agencies to seek certification of rules, the Act provides incentives in the
form of more restrictive procedural prerequisites for Council review of agency actions. If an
agency obligates itself in its rules to comply with the TCMP, the Council can comfortably limit
its authority to review that agency's actions. The incentives are integral to the TCMP's design
because they allow the Council's finite time and resources to be focused on formulation of
policy. As designed, the Council should be directly involved in implementation of policy only
when an individual agency action involves potentially large or serious impacts or an agency
displays a pattern of failing to comply with the TCMP.

1. Incentives for Rule Certification: Thresholds

       Once an agency's rules are certified, the agency can adopt "consistency review
thresholds," which are quantitative or qualitative measures of the potential impacts an action may
have on coastal resources. Thresholds limit the council's authority to review an agency's actions.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-1                            August 1996







Thresholds must be reasonably calculated to describe actions with "unique and significant"
effects. The Council can review an action below thresholds only if it is the subject of a formal
adjudicative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (TEX. GOV. CODE ANN.
Chapter 2001) and may directly and adversely affect a critical area, critical dune area, coastal
preserve, or gulf beach.

2. Rule Certification Procedures

       An agency follows the same procedures to receive Council approval of thresholds that it
follows to obtain Council certification of rules or rule amendments under Chapter 505 of the
Council's rules. This chapter allows for certification of existing rules, new rules, and rule
amendments. While the procedures are somewhat different, the result of certification is the same
for all of these.

       Whether or not an agency intends to seek certification of a proposed new rule or rule
amendment, the Act and Council rules requires the rule or amendment to comply with the TCMP
goals and policies. Section 505.22 also requires the agency to notify the council of the proposed
rule or amendment. Before a rule or amendment is adopted, the public and Council members
will submit to the agency any comments on the consistency of the rule or amendment.

       The agency may request "pre-certification review" of a proposed new rule or amendment.
The purpose of pre-certification review is to maximize opportunities to coordinate agency rules,
to facilitate effective and efficient implementation of the TCMP, and to identify and correct
possible inconsistencies in the draft rule or draft rule amendment prior to its proposal and
publication in the Texas Register.

       Upon adoption of the new rule or rule amendment, the agency may submit it to the
Council for certification of consistency with the TCMP goals and policies. Under 31 TAC
ï¿½505.23(c), an agency may seek expedited certification of a rule or rule amendment if the agency
provides appropriate notice in advance that it will seek expedited review and if it has submitted
the draft rule or rule amendment to the Council for pre-certification review.

       If the Council finds that the rule incorporates or otherwise requires the agency to comply
with the applicable TCM1P goals and policies, the Council issues a written certification of the
rule. If the rule is not consistent with the TCMP goals and policies, the Council issues a written
statement denying certification of the rule with recommended changes that would result in rule
certification.

       The Council may deny certification based only on the consistency issues raised in
comments to the agency from: (1) the Council and the public during the pre-certification review
period; (2) the public during the public comment period for the proposed rule; or (3) the
Executive Committee during expedited review. Additionally, the Council may also deny
certification if, upon adoption, substantial changes are made to the proposed rule or rule
amendment that raise new consistency issues.

       The Council's denial must be written and must include recommendations to make the rule
or amendment consistent, as specified under 31 TAC ï¿½505.23(b). It is anticipated that the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part H1 5-2                           August 1996







Council and the agency will work to correct any deficiency during the period after the agency has
decided to adopt the amendment but before the amendment takes legal effect. By law, this
period is at least 20 days after the adopted rule is published in the Texas Register.

3. Ensuring Com~ijlance: Decertification

        The Council's main administrative compliance mechanism is issuance of a "Notice of
Program Deficiency." The Council may issue the notice either if an agency fails to take
corrective action after the Council has denied certification of a rule or amendment, or if the
Council finds that an agency has implemented certified rules in a manner that is inconsistent with
the goals and policies of the TCMP. The Council may make the latter finding either in response
to an agency rulemaking action or on its own initiative.

       In accordance with 31 TAC ï¿½505.25, the notice must set forth the alleged deficiency, the
basis for alleging the deficiency, and any recommended steps the agency should take to correct
the deficiency within a specified time period. The time allowed to correct the deficiency will be
determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the scope of the program or rule and the
nature of the deficiencies. The adequacy of an agency's corrective response will be similarly
judged. To be adequate, the response must satisfactorily explain why the alleged deficiency does
not exist, implement the Council's recommendations, or propose other ways to correct the
deficiency.

       If the Council finds the alleged deficiencies have not been corrected or adequately
explained, it can then vote to revoke the agency's rule certification with respect to those parts of
the agency's rules affected by the amendment. Once the Council revokes certification, the
agency does not receive the benefits of thresholds specified under 31 TAC ï¿½505.21 and many of
the procedural prerequisites for referral of actions to the Council under 31 TAC ï¿½505.32 do not
apply.

       Decertification results in invalidation of the agency's thresholds, resulting in a greater
likelihood that the Council may review individual agency actions. Consequently, decertification
is a powerful administrative tool to ensure that agencies comply with the TCMP on an ongomig
basis. It constitutes the Council's determination that closer Council scrutiny of the agency's
future actions is needed to ensure the agency properly implements the TCMP.

       It is not the Council's sole remedy, however. Therefore, Council rules do not make
revocation of certification mandatory. This allows the Council to pursue other remedies. For
example, the Council may seek an attorney general's opinion on the validity of the agency rule or
enter into alternative dispute resolution with the agency.

       The Council or an affected party may also challenge the consistency of an agency rule or
rule amendment judicially under the APA. The Coastal Coordination Act requires certain agency
rules to be consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP. Section 2001.03 8 of the APA
authorizes actions for declaratory judgments challenging the validity of agency rules. Whether
or not it has requested certification, the agency must affirm that it has taken into account the
goals and policies of the TCMP by issuing a reasoned determination that the rule or rule


Texas Coastal Management Program Final ETS    Part II 5-3                          August 1996







amendment is consistent with the TCMP goals and policies. This provides the basis for a
challenge under the APA. I

       Agencies seeking certification of rules have entered into memoranda of agreement or
passed resolutions committing to seek Council certification of the consistency of any future
amendments to their rules. The agreements and resolutions are contained in Appendix E.

       While an important component of TCMP implementation, enforcement of the TCMP is
not dependent upon certification of agency rules. An action subject to the program must be
consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP, regardless of whether or not the agency rules
governing that action have been certified.

C. Consistency of Permits and Other Individual Actions

       Section 33.205(b) of the Coastal Coordination Act requires that agencies and
subdivisions proposing an action subject to the program affirm that the action is consistent with
the goals and policies of the TCMP. This determination must be in writing in the order, permit,
or other document approving or authorizing the action. Therefore, rules, orders, permits, or
authorizations must contain the conditions, restrictions or limitations necessary to justify the
determination of consistency.

       There is only one exception to the requirement that an action be consistent with the goals
and policies of the TCMP. Under 31 TAC ï¿½501.30, consistency is not required if an agency
determines that adverse effects from an action will be neither direct nor significant. A finding of
no direct and significant adverse effect is a form of the consistency determination under
ï¿½33.205(b) of the Act and is therefore subject to administrative and judicial challenges in the
same manner as an agency consistency determination.

       The finding of no direct and significant adverse effect on coastal natural resource areas
under (CNRAs) 31 TAC ï¿½505.30(c) is very specific to the facts and circumstances of each
proposed action. By definition, the term "direct" pertains simply to causation and the term
"significant" relates simply to whether an impact is measurable. Therefore, an action has a direct
and significant adverse effect if detectable or observable impacts on CNRAs can be causally
linked to the activity authorized by the action.

       There will be few circumstances in which actions above thresholds will qualify for the 31
TAC ï¿½505.30(c) exception. By definition, these actions are anticipated to have appreciable
impacts. Under 31 TAC ï¿½501.13(b), actions above thresholds are those that "may have
significant impacts." The only situation in which findings of no significant adverse effects
should be made for actions above thresholds are those cases in which an agency adopts a zero
threshold. Overall, large numbers of findings under 31 TAC ï¿½505.30(c) are not anticipated.

1. Means of Ensurina Consistencv of Individual Actions

       There are three independent and effective means of enforcing the goals and policies of the
TCMP, each based on the consistency determination required by ï¿½33.205(1) of the Act.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-4                           August 1996







  1.   The networked agencies and subdivisions can take administrative action against private
       parties to enforce the existing authorities that are linked together into the TCMP. For
       example, permit conditions necessary to achieve TCMP consistency can be enforced
       through all means available to networked agencies. These existing enforcement powers
       typically include assessment of administrative penalties and fines or revocation of the
       agency authorization or approval. If administrative action does not achieve compliance,
       the agency or subdivision can pursue civil or criminal litigation through referral of the
       matter to the attorney general.

  2.   The Council can administratively review agency and subdivision consistency
       determinations. If the Council disagrees with an agency's or subdivision's determination
       and the agency or subdivision does not correct the problem, the Council can pursue
       litigation through referral of the matter to the attorney general.

  3.   Third parties (citizens, agencies, or local governments) who would be affected by an
       agency consistency determination can administratively challenge it. For example, an
       affected party can challenge agency consistency determinations in a formal adjudicative
       hearing or contested case hearing before an agency. Affected parties can also pursue
       litigation to challenge the result of the hearing.

These three enforcement techniques are described in more detail below.

2. Action by a Networked Agencv or Subdivision

       Networked agencies and subdivisions bear primary responsibility for implementing the
TCMP. They ensure that land and water uses affecting the coastal zone comply with the TCMP
goals and policies. The duty of each line agency to enforce the TCMP is clear in the Act.
Section 33.208(a) of the Act mandates that the agency or subdivision with jurisdiction over a
proposed action "shall enforce" the provisions of the TCMP applicable to that action.

       Existing law authorizes each networked agency to undertake administrative enforcement
actions for violation of the terms or conditions of a permit issued under authorities networked in
the TCMP. (See, for example, Chapter 361, Texas Health and Safety Code (Texas Solid Waste
Disposal Act); Chapter 382, Texas Health and Safety Code (Texas Clean Air Act); and Chapter
26, Texas Water Code (Texas Water Quality Act).) In 1991, the Texas Legislature adopted far-
reaching amendments to the statutes cited above providing for strong criminal sanctions for
violations of these statutes.

       Each agency exercising a networked authority is bound by the Act and Chapter 505 to
conformance with the relevant enforceable policies in the TCMP. Listed permits or
authorizations must contain the conditions, restrictions or limitations necessary to ensure they are
consistent with the TCMP goals and policies, as affirmed by the consistency determination the
Act requires to be included in the permit or authorization. These conditions, restrictions, or
limitations can serve as the basis for administrative enforcement actions by networked agencies
as required by ï¿½33.208(a) of the Act.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-5                         August 1996







       If administrative remedies are not successful, the agency can refer the matter to the
attorney general to seek judicial sanctions under these statutes. While the Council has no direct
authority to review enforcement decisions by agencies and subdivisions, a pattern of failure to
enforce can constitute inconsistent implementation of the TCMP goals and policies and result in
issuance of a Notice of Program Deficiency by the Council.

3. Action by a Non-Networked Aaencv or Subdivision

       The TCMP is designed to ensure that all state agencies and subdivisions will adhere to
the TCMP goals and policies, even those that are not directly networked into the program. Any
action or authorization which may adversely affect a CNRA--whether undertaken by a networked
or non-networked agency or subdivision--must be consistent with the TCMP. All actions which
may adversely affect a CNRA are specifically listed in the enabling legislation and the TCMP
rules. These actions must be consistent with the TCMP, regardless of whether the entity seeking
approval for the action is a person, corporation, or a networked or non-networked agency or
subdivision.

       The list of state and subdivision actions subject to the TCMP is comprehensive. For
example, TxDOT transportation projects may adversely affect CNRAs and are thus specifically
listed in the statute and TCMP rules. In addition, the Chairman of the Texas Transportation
Commission sits on the Council, ensuring effective coordination of transportation projects.
Construction of wastewater treatment projects is also subject to the TCMP, even though the
allocation of State Revolving Fund monies by the Texas Water Development Board is not an
action subject to the TCMP. Operation of a wastewater treatment plant requires at least one
permit subject to the TCMP-a wastewater discharge permit. As in this example, actions by non-
networked agencies which affect CNRAs are thus effectively managed through the TCMP.

4. Council Review of Individual Actions

       The Act grants the Council authority to review agency and subdivision consistency
determinations regarding proposed permits and other individual actions. The Council reviews
ensure that these authorizations contain the conditions and restrictions necessary for consistency
with the TCMP goals and policies. Pursuant to the Coastal Coordination Act Section 33.205(3),
agency denial of an action is not subject to review by the Council. However, applicants whose
permit is denied may still appeal the agency decision under existing state procedures inlcuding
the Texas Administrative Procedures Act.

       The function of the Council, however, is not simply to second-guess agencies and
subdivisions. Rather, it is to resolve potentially time-consuming, costly conflicts among
agencies, subdivisions, affected parties, permit applicants, and others. Consequently, the
existence of a significant unresolved dispute over a proposed action's consistency with the goals
and policies of the TCMP is a substantive prerequisite for Council review. If all parties agree
that an action complies with the goals and policies, there is no need for the Council to take
action.

       The consistency determination required by ï¿½33.205(b) serves as the basis for Council
review. The agency's determination and the conditions, restrictions, or limitations necessary to

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-6                         August 1996







           support it, must be developed and integrated into the agency's process for evaluating and
           informing the public of the proposed action. This ensures that consistency issues are not set
0       ~     ~~aside until the last moment or only raised on Council review. It also creates an avenue for
           affected parties, including the public, to comment on an agency's implementation of the state's
           uniform coastal policies. It is the means of calling to the Council's attention any unresolved
           conflicts over the proposed action.

                   The Act and Council rules include a "preliminary review" process which gives agencies,
           subdivisions, and applicants the opportunity to request recommendations with respect to the
           consistency of a proposed action. The preliminary review process is expected to resolve disputes
           over the consistency of proposed actions and therefore reduce the number of proposed actions
           referred to the Council for resolution. Either an agency proposing a permit or other individual
           action or the permit applicant may request a preliminary finding that the permit or action "is
           likely to be found consistent" with the goals and policies of the TCMP.

                   The Act also provides for the Council to establish a process by which an "individual or
           small business" may request and receive assistance in filing applications for permits or other
           proposed actions. An individual or small business can also obtain a preliminary finding of
           consistency. The preliminary review and permitting assistance processes allow the Council
           members to interact with and obtain information from the agency or subdivision with jurisdiction
           over the proposed action regarding the approvability of the proposed action.

                  The EC can issue a preliminary consistency finding only after accepting and considering
            public comment, and if sufficient information is available to evaluate the consistency of the
           action. For the EC to issue an unqualified finding, an administratively complete application must
           be filed and the permitting agency must have had the opportunity to fully and accurately describe
           both the proposed activity and its impacts on CNRAs, consider the public comments, and
           produce a draft permit or provide some other document containing all applicable conditions or
           limitations to be placed on the activity. To the extent this information is not available to the EC,
           the EC must place the appropriate qualifications on any findings it issues.

                  The term "likely to be found consistent" means that the proposed permit or action would
           be found consistent if reviewed by the Council. If the EC issues a preliminary finding of
           consistency, the Council may review the proposed action only if the agency or subdivision has
           substantially changed the permit or action subsequent to the issuance of the preliminary finding.

                  The Act and Council rules also establish the procedures by which a proposed action may
           come before the Council for formal review. These procedural requirements, ensure that
           consistency issues are raised early and are clearly and unambiguously articulated so that the
           networked agency or subdivision can resolve them. They also ensure that disputes elevated to
           the Council are significant. The agency or subdivision, not the Council, has the first obligation
           to resolve the consistency dispute in this networked program. Unless there are clear and
           substantial questions about that determination, the Council will defer to the agency or
           subdivision.



           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-7                          August 1996







       The Council may review proposed actions if the following three conditions are met:

  *    The consistency determination for the proposed action is contested by: (1) a Council
       member or an agency that was a party in a formal hearing under the APA, or in an
       alternative dispute resolution process; or (2) a Council member or other person by the

       filing of written comments with the agency before the action was proposed, if the
       proposed action is one for which a formal hearing under the APA is not available.

    * A person described in the paragraph above files a request for referral within ten days after
       the agency has proposed the action for which consistency review is sought alleging a
       significant unresolved dispute regarding the proposed action's consistency with the goals
       and policies of the TCMP.

    * Any three regular members of the Council agree, within 13 days after the agency has
       proposed the action for which referral has been requested, that there is a significant
       unresolved dispute regarding the consistency of the proposed action with the goals and
       policies of the TCMP and the matter is placed on the agenda for a Council meeting.

       The decision of the Council to review a proposed action is purely discretionary; therefore,
no one has a right to have the Council review a proposed action except the Council members
themselves.

       Once an agency's rules have been certified and consistency review thresholds are in
effect, additional conditions must be met before the Council may review a proposed action below
the threshold:

    * The action must directly and adversely affect a critical area, critical dune area, coastal
       preserve, or gulf beach and if a state agency has contested the consistency determination
       under the APA. The Council may not review an action below a threshold if it is the type
       of action to which the remedies under the APA do not apply.

       The Council must consider and act on a matter referred as described above before the
26th day after the date the agency or subdivision proposed the action. An action subject to the
contested case provisions of the APA is proposed when notice of a decision or order is issued.
The proposed action is deemed consistent and approved by the Council unless the Council
determines the action to be inconsistent with the TCMP by an affirmative vote of at least two-
thirds of the members of the Council (eight votes).

       If, after review, the Council finds that an action is inconsistent with TCMP goals and
policies, the Council reports its findings to the agency or subdivision. The findings must specify
how the action is inconsistent and recommend how it can be modified to comply. Section
33.206(b) requires the agency or subdivision to review and act on the findings, which carry great
legal weight. An agency or subdivision may elect to cure the inconsistency in a manner other
than that specifically recommended by the Council. However, the agency or subdivision must
notify the Council of its decision within 20 days of the date the agency or subdivision received
the Council's findings.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    part 11 5-8                         August 1996







        The Council retains the authority to review an action again following the agency's or
subdivision's consideration of its findings. If the Council again finds the action inconsistent, the
Council is authorized to pursue remedies through the attorney general. Section 33.206(c) directs
the Council to refer the matter to the attorney general. As is the attorney general's prerogative as
the state's chief legal officer, the attorney general then determines whether to file suit. The Act
requires the decision to be publicly justified. Section 33.206(c) requires this decision to be made
in the form of an official opinion. The attorney general must issue an opinion before the 26th
day after the date the Council requested the opinion. If the attorney general finds the action
inconsistent, under ï¿½33.208(b) the agency or subdivision must then implement the Council's
recommendations or the matter is litigated. The attorney general can sue only agencies and
subdivisions on the Council's behalf, not private parties.

       At any time, the Council and, if a suit is filed, the attorney general, may enter into a
settlement agreement with the agency or subdivision. If such an agreement is reached, the
Council may rescind its request for an opinion from the attorney general or, if a suit has been
filed, the attorney general may drop the suit.

       The Act contemplates that the process for Council review is complete before the permit
or other agency or subdivision action in question is final and vests the applicant with the legal
right to conduct activities. Additionally, ï¿½33.206(c) states that the agency or subdivision is
stayed from taking the proposed until the attorney general issues the opinion. Accordingly, 31
TAC ï¿½505.37 provides that pending Council review of an action, no person may conduct
activities authorized by the agency action that would irreparably alter or damage a coastal natural
resource area identified in the applicable policy.

5. Third Party Action

       The APA and other state authorities provide another basis for enforcement of the TCMP
goals and policies. They provide the basis for aggrieved parties to challenge an agency
consistency determination in both administrative and judicial forums. The APA provides that:

       "A decision that may become final under ï¿½2001.144 must include findings of fact
       and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact may be based only on
       the evidence and on matters that are officially noticed. Findings of fact, if set
       forth in statutory language, must be accompanied by a concise and explicit
       statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. If a party submits under
       a state agency rule proposed findings of fact, the decision shall include a ruling on
       each proposed finding" (ï¿½2001.141).

       The determination that an action or authorization is consistent with the TCMP under 31
TAC ï¿½505.30 is a conclusion of law that must be supported by the facts and law in the agency
record. Therefore, it can be challenged by an affected party in a contested case before either the
agency or the State Office of Administrative Hearings, and ultimately in state court. The APA
specifically grants affected parties the right to judicially challenge an agency's final decision as
follows:

       "A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-9                            August 1996







        agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to
       judicial review under this chapter" (ï¿½2001.171).                                                    0

        To meet the requirements of the APA and other laws enacted to guarantee the citizens of
Texas input into government decision making, agencies have adopted rules giving potentially
aggrieved third parties various procedural rights with respect to proposed permits and other
actions. The particular requirements of these rules vary between agencies and permits.
Generally, they require various forms of public notice of proposed actions, require agencies to
provide opportunities for public comment, and specify how a contested case hearing is triggered.

       The public has notice, comment, and hearing opportunities and the right to a contested
case hearing under the APA with regard to the following actions that are subject to the TCMP:
PUC certificate of convenience and necessity; THC permit for alteration of state archaeological
landmark; TNRCC wastewater discharge permits, water rights permits, solid/hazardous waste
disposal permits, creation of special districts, and approval of levee and flood control projects;
RRC wastewater discharge permits and waste disposal permits; and TPWD oyster leases and
marl/sand/shell/gravel permits. The APA allows an affected party to appeal an agency decision
based on a contested case hearing to district court.

       Under common law, all agencies and subdivisions are subject to an action for injunctive
relief based on the allegation that they are not complying with applicable rules or statutes, such
as the Act or the goals and policies of the TCMP. Moreover, certain agencies' authorizing
statutes go farther and specifically authorize a person or entity aggrieved by an act of the agency
to seek judicial relief. The School Land Board is subject to suit under ï¿½33.173, Texas Natural
Resources Code, and the TNRCC is subject to suit under ï¿½5.531, Texas Water Code. In addition,
ï¿½26.124, Texas Water Code, grants local governments and TPWD the broad authority to sue to
seek injunctive relief or civil penalties in cases where there is a violation or a threat of a violation
of either a rule, permit, or order of the TNRCC or the general statutory prohibition against
impairing water quality. This provision provides the legal basis for TNRCC's issuance of
certifications for federal dredge or fill permits. A local government may sue when the violation
occurs or would occur within its geographic jurisdiction. TPWD may sue when the violation
would affect aquatic life or wildlife.

       Agency rules and statutes provide the public with other public notice and comment
opportunities. With regard to TNRCC and RRC certification of federal permits for the discharge
of dredged or fill material, both agencies' rules require public notice of proposed certifications to
be issued and afford the public the right to comment to the agency. Both agencies' rules also
include the opportunity for a nonadjudicative public hearing on proposed certifications.
Similarly, TxDOT rules require it to pursue a public scoping and planning process for its
highway projects that is very similar to the process required under the National Environmental
Policy Act.

       Council rules also contain provisions specifically designed to facilitate public review and
comment on agency consistency determinations. For actions above thresholds for referral, 31
TAC ï¿½505.30(c) requires agencies to provide comprehensive information justifying their
consistency determinations. Section 505.30(d) requires public notices to contain a specific
statement that the proposed action is subject to the TCMP.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part I 5-10                           August 1996







       All governing boards and commissions of state agencies and subdivisions are subject to
the Open Meetings Act (Chapter 551, TEX. GOV. CODE ANN.). Under this Act, the board or
commission can take an action subject to the TCMP only in a public meeting. The board or
commission must give at least seven days advanced notice of the meeting. Generally, agencies
include in the notice the location and type of activity to be authorized to apprise those potentially
affected by the decision of its impacts. Actions of the SLB and TTC that are subject to the
TCMP must be authorized in public meetings that are subject to the Act. In addition, the actions
of the Council must be taken in a public meeting that is subject to the Act.

       GLO issuance of miscellaneous easements, surface leases, and geophysical and
geochemical permits, and approval of mitigation banks are not subject to any public notice and
comment requirements. However, it is the practice of the GLO to solicit public input into these
actions, as well as to coordinate these actions with other resource agencies. Because the activity
to be authorized frequently requires approval by an agency that issues some form of public notice
(for example, the Corps), the GLO typically receives public comment through the other agency's
process. Under the Open Beaches Act, the GLO certifies local government dune protection and
beach access plans by amendment to the GLO beach/dune rules. Therefore, the public is
afforded the notice and comment opportunities provided by the APA for agency rulemaking
actions.


D. Citv and County Management of the Beach/Dune Svstem

       The rules governing the Council's review of local government actions basically follow the
structure of the rules governing the Council's review of agency actions described above. Several
differences are noteworthy. First, the exclusive list of actions in ï¿½33.2053 includes only two
local government actions, the issuance of dune protection permits and the issuance of beaclfront
construction certificates for large projects in the beach and dune area. Second, because the goals
and policies of the TCMP reflect the GLO's rules governing the management of the beach/dune
system (31 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Chapter 15), the consistency determination required of local
governments by ï¿½33.204(b) is the same as the findings required by the GLO's beach/dune system
rules.

       Under 31 TAC ï¿½505.68, once the GLO has certified a local government's dune protection
and beach access plan, the Council rules presume that the local government's consistency
determination is valid. This presumption places the burden on the person challenging the
consistency determination to show an inconsistency. Under both the Open Beaches Act and the
Dune Protection Act, the attorney general, the GLO, or the county or district attorney are
authorized to sue to enforce either act and can therefore ensure compliance with the goals and
policies, whether a local government plan has been certified.

E.     Federal Consistenev Review

1. Introduction

       The Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal agencies to act consistently with
federally approved state coastal management programs. Federal consistency review is the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-11                         August 1996







process by which the state can review an action undertaken, licensed, permitted, or funded by a
federal agency to ensure the consistency of the action with the enforceable policies of its i

program. If the state finds a given action to be inconsistent with the enforceable policies, with
few exceptions, the action cannot be undertaken.

       The federal regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, based on ï¿½307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, set specific procedures states must follow when conducting federal
consistency reviews. The federal regulations include procedures for consistency reviews of: (1)
activities undertaken by the federal government, including development projects; (2) federally
licensed or permitted activities; (3) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration, development,
and production activities; and (4) federal assistance to state and local governments (fig. 2).

       In addition, the federal regulations delineate a process for mediation of disputes between
the state and federal agencies or applicants to federal agencies. These regulations also establish
procedures for review of the state's consistency determinations by the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

       To promote efficiency and to streamline the process, the Texas federal consistency review
process will be tailored to the state's through the use of memoranda of agreement, general
consistency agreements, interagency coordination groups (ICGs), and general concurrences.

2. Federal Decisions Covered bv the TCMP (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.33.930.34, 930.53, 930.74, and

   930.95)

       The Coastal Coordination Act requires the Council to adopt procedural rules for the
review of federal actions, activities, and OCS plans that incorporate the federal requirements for
consistency review. State law defines the federal decisions subject to Council review as: (1)
"federal agency activities;" (2) "federal agency actions" and (3) "Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
plans." By definition, these terms cover the four types of federal activities listed under the
federal regulations.


I State Term                                    I Federal Term
 Federal agency activity                         Federal activity, including development
                                                 projects

                                                 Federal assistance
 Federal agency action                           Federal license or permit
  Outer Continental Shelf Plan                    Outer Continental Shelf Plan

       The Act defines "federal agency action" to mean a license or permit that a federal agency
may issue that represents the proposed federal authorization, approval, or certification needed by
an applicant to begin an activity.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-12                            August 1996







                   The Act defines "federal agency activity" to mean a function performed by or for a
           federal agency in the exercise of its statutory responsibility, including financial assistance, the
Is ~~planning, construction, modification, or removal of a public work, facility, or any other structure;
           and the acquisition, use, or disposal of land or water resources, but not the issuance of a federal
           license or permit. Federal financial assistance is further defined in the consistency review rule to
           be "limited to federal programmatic requirements for project level funding. "

                   The Act defines "outer continental shelf plan" as a plan for the exploration or
           development of, or production from, an area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
           and the rules adopted under that Act that is submitted to the Secretary of the Interior after federal
           approval of the coastal management program.

                   Federal regulations (I15 CFR ï¿½93 0.34(a)) require federal agencies to provide the state
           with a consistency determination for all federal activities that may affect coastal natural resource
           areas, even if the Council does not review the activity. The state has listed federal actions and
           activities subject to review by the Council. This list is intended to provide notice to federal
           agencies and applicants for federal permits and licenses and federal financial assistance. The list
           may be amended through rulemnaking after the Council consults with the affected federal agency
           and receives approval from the Assistant Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
           Administration. In addition to publishing the list as part of its regulations, the Council will
           provide copies of the list, and any amendments, to federal agencies and units of state or local
           government affected by the list.

                   Unlike the list of state agency and subdivision actions subject to Council review, the
           federal list is not exclusive. The federal regulations encourage the state to monitor unlisted
           federal actions and activities affecting the coastal zone. The Council may choose to review an
           unlisted federal agency action or federal assistance. If the Council so chooses, it must determine
           whether it wishes to review that type of action or assistance in the future. To preserve its ability
           to review, the Council must amend its rules to list the action or assistance. If the action or
           assistance is not added to the rule, the Council may not review that type of action or assistance
           again (31 TAC ï¿½506.12(f)).

                   The list includes actions, activities, and OCS plans both inside and outside the coastal
           zone. The geographic scope of review of federal actions outside the boundaries is limited to
           Outer Continental Shelf waters for actions seaward of the coastal boundary. The list of federal
           actions, activities, and OCS plans subject to federal consistency review is in 31 TAC ï¿½506.12
           (p~art of Appendix C, Rules for State, Local, and Federal Consistency Review) (fig. 2).

                  The Council rules include a provision for a one-time determination of consistency for a
           federal agency action or federal assistance. Under this provision, an action taken by a state
           agency or subdivision or federal agency to implement an activity described in an application for
           federal assistance or for a federal license or permit that the Council has determined to be
           consistent will not be subject to review by the Council if the action is described in sufficient
           detail in the application.




           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 1I 5-13                          August 1996







                                                                                    FIGURE 2

                                                              PROPOSED FEDERAL CONSISTENCY TIME LINES

Federal Activities (except federal assistance)

DAY                        1                                                               45                               60

                          I I I
                   Federal agency                  {30-day public                      Council                      Council agrees
                       submits                        notice and                       decision,                     or disagrees
                     consistency                   comment period                    extension, or
                    determination                    included in                     consistency
                                                  first 45 days}                    presumed

Federal Actions

DAY                        1                                                               45                                                               90


                      Applicant                    (30-day public                       Council                                                         Council
                       submits                        notice and                         refers                                                         concurs
                     consistency                   comment period                     {extension)                                                          or
                     certification                   included in                       or action                                                        objects
                                                  first 45 days}                    presumed
                                                                                   consistent

Outer Continental Shelf Plane

DAY                        1                                                               45                                                               90


                      Secretary                    (30-day public                       Council                                                         Council
                        of the                        notice and                         refers                                                         concurs
                       Interior                   comment period                     (extension)                                                           or
                   forwards copy                     included in                       or plan                                                          objects
                       of plan                     first 45 days}                     presumed
                  and consistency                                                     consistent
                     certification

Federal Assistance

DAY                        1                               30                              46                               60


                       SSPOC                       Chairman must                        Council                         Council
                      forwards                         refer or                        concurs                         concurs
                        copy                         application                          or                              or
                    of application                    presumed                          objects                         objects
                                                    consistent                         (NOI                          (NOI not
                                               (certain applications                submitted)                      submitted)
                                                 require a decision
                                                   at this point)







           3. General Process for Federal Consistency Review

 0              ~~~~~Federal agencies and applicants for federal permits must provide to the Council a
           consistency determination or consistency certification for all actions inside or outside the coastal
           zone that will affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. The Coastal
           Coordination Act requires the Council to issue the final decision on whether the state concurs
           with the applicant's consistency certification or the federal agency's consistency determination.
           The Act directs the GLO to assist the Council in carrying out its duties. For federal consistency
           review matters, the GLO will provide administrative support to the Council.

                  The Council's public notice and comment procedures are essentially the same for federal
           agency activities, federal agency actions, and Outer Continental Shelf plans. All consistency
           certifications and determinations will be received by the Council secretary. Immediately upon
           receipt, the secretary will publish public notice in the Texas Register. The notice will request
           public comments on consistency within 30 days of the notice. The chairman or three members of
           the Council may extend the public comment period and schedule a public hearing on a
           consistency matter. In certain instances, the Council may issue public notice jointly with the
           federal agency having the authority to permit or license the activity.

                  Concurrently with publication of the notice, the Council secretary will route the
           certification or determination to the Council members and their staff. The GLO staff will begin
          reviewing the certification or determination for consistency with all the TCMIP goals and
          policies. The GLO staff will also review all public comments as they are received. If it appears
          that a proposed federal action or activity could present new, unique, or significant problems with
          regard to consistency with the TCMP or could otherwise be controversial, the GLO will begin to
           coordinate with other Council members or their staffs at the earliest opportunity. This
          coordination could involve meetings of the EC, PAG, or other interagency meetings.

                  After evaluating the consistency determination or certification, reviewing public
          comment, and coordinating with other Council members or their staffs, the GLO staff will
          develop a summary of public comments and a recommendation for approval by the Council
          chairman. The chairman will recommend that the Council concur with the certification or agree
          with the determination, unless a significant unresolved consistency dispute has been found. In
          that case, the chairman will recommend that the Council object to the certification or
          determination and place the matter on the Council agenda for formal review.

                  The Council secretary will send the chairman's recommendation and the public comment
          summary to all Council members. The Council members will then decide whether to formally
          review the matter. At least three Council members must agree to place the matter on the agenda,
          otherwise the action is deemed consistent. For example, the Council would formally review the
          matter if the chairman recommended agreeing with a federal agency consistency determination,
          but three members disagreed and requested that the secretary place the matter on the agenda of a
          Council meeting.

                  If the Council does not refer the matter for review, consistency is conclusively presumed
*        ~~~after the deadline has lapsed (see fig. 2 for deadlines). If the matter is referred, the secretary will
          place it on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Council. If the next regular meeting is

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   part 11 5-15                          August 1996







scheduled after the time period for the Council decision ends, the chairman or any three regular
members will call a special meeting of the Council, to be held before the end of the time period.
The secretary will notify the Council members, applicant, federal agency, and other affected is
parties of the Council's decision concerning referral immediately upon issuance of the decision.

       The Council's public meetings will serve as the public hearings for those actions which
the Council chooses to review. Council meetings are held quarterly on the first Thursday of
February, May, August, and November. In addition, the chairman or any three members may
convene special meetings. Public notice of the Council meeting must be posted at the office of
the Secretary of State no later than eight days before the meeting. The public notice will include
the meeting agenda.

       At the Council meeting, the Council will review the consistency certification or
determination, the public comment, the chairman's recommendation, and the responses or
recommiendations of other Council members. The Council will also solicit fur-ther public
commient at the meeting. The Council will then make its finding regarding consistency. A two-
thirds vote of the Council is required to object to or disagree with a consistency certification or
determination. The governor, with the assistance of the chair of the Council, may seek mediation
of disagreements between the state and the' applicant or federal agency over the consistency of a
federal agency action, activity, or OCS plan.

       GLO staff will provide technical assistance to applicants for federal actions and any
person submitting an OCS plan to ensure that the proposed activities will be conducted in -a
manner consistent with the TCMP. This assistance will be available both before and during
TCMP consistency review. The assistance includes making the TCMP document available to the
public.

4. Federal Activities and Development Proiects (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.35(c) and ï¿½930.40)

       Federal agencies considering the approval of a federal agency activity or development
project listed in 31 TAC ï¿½506.12 must provide to the Council secretary a consistency
determination at least 90 days before final approval.

       Federal activities are required to be "consistent to the maximum extent practicable" with
the goals and policies of the TCM.P. For purposes of federal consistency review, "consistent to
the maximum extent practicable" means that federal activities and development projects must be
fuly consistent with the federally approved TCMP unless compliance is prohibited by
requirements of existing law applicable to the federal agency's operations. If a federal agency
asserts that compliance with the TCMIP is prohibited by law, it must clearly describe in its
negative determination the statutory provisions, legislative history, or other legal authority which
limits the federal agency's discretion to comply with the provisions of the TCMP.

       When more than one federal agency is involved in conducting or supporting a federal
activity or its associated facilities or is involved in a group of federal activities related to each
other because of their geographic proximity, the agencies are encouraged to prepare the
consistency determination jointly. In such situations, the consistency determination must be
transmitted to the Council secretary at least 90 days before final decisions are taken by any of the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 5-16                          August 1996







               participating agencies.

is The federal agency's consistency determination must include: (1) a brief statement
               indicating whether the proposed activity or development project will be undertaken in a manner
               consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the TCMP; (2) a detailed description of the
               activity or development project, its associated facilities, and their effects on coastal natural
               resource areas; and (3) comprehensive data and information sufficient to support the federal
               agency's consistency determination. The statement must be based upon an evaluation of the
               relevant provisions of the TCMP. The amount of detail in the evaluation statement, activity
               description, and supporting information must be commensurate with the expected effects of the
               activity CNRAs.

                      Where a joint consistency determination is prepared, the determination must indicate
               whether each of the proposed activities is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
               TCMP and must include information on each proposed activity sufficient to support the
               consistency determination.

                      The consistency determination must be based on the following: (1) the activity (e.g.,
               project siting and construction); (2) its direct effects (e.g., air, water, waste discharges); (3)
               associated facilities (e.g., proposed siting and construction of access roads, connecting pipelines,
               support buildings); and (4) the direct effects of the associated facilities (e.g., erosion, wetlands,
               and beach access impacts). While nonassociated facilities (e.g., recreational housing which is
               induced by, but not necessarily related to, a federal harbor dredging project) must be included
               within the consistency determination's description of the direct effects of the activity, federal
               agencies are not responsible for evaluating the consistency of such facilities.

                      Under federal law, federal agencies should adequately consider advisory policies;
               however, the Council cannot base its finding of consistency on these policies. If federal
               standards for an activity are stricter than the standards set in the TCMP, the federal agency will
               apply its stricter standards.

                a. Federal Activities: Negative Determinations (15 CFR ï¿½930.35(d))

                      A federal agency must notify the Council secretary if it intends to file a negative
               determination, at least 90 days before final approval of the activity. A negative determination is
               required if a federal agency finds that a consistency determination is not required for a federal
               activity that is the same as or similar to activities for which consistency determinations have been
               prepared in the past or for which the federal agency undertook a thorough consistency
               assessment and developed initial findings on the effects of the activity.

                b. Federal Activities: General Consistencv Determinations (15 CFR ï¿½930.37(b))

                      Federal agencies are allowed to develop a general consistency determination for repeated
               activities other than development projects (e.g., ongoing maintenance or waste disposal) that
               cumulatively may have a direct effect on coastal natural resource areas. This allows federal
               agencies to avoid issuing separate consistency determinations for each incremental action. The
               incremental actions must be repetitive or periodic, must be substantially similar in nature, and

               Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 1I 5-17                           August 1996







must not directly affect CNRAs when performed separately. If a general consistency

determination is issued, then the federal agency must periodically consult with the Council to          0
discuss the manner in which the incremental actions are being undertaken.

       Under section 506.28, the Council may issue a general consistency agreement in response
to a general consistency determination. These agreements may be issued only for a repeated
activity other than a development project that cumulatively has a direct effect upon the coastal
zone.

 c. Consistencv Determinations for Pronosed Development Projects (15 CFR ï¿½930.37(c))

       A federal agency may provide one consistency determination when it has sufficient
information to determine the consistency of a proposed development project from planning to
completion. If the decisions for a proposed project are to be made in phases based on developing
information, with each subsequent phase subject to federal agency discretion to implement
alternative decisions based on the information, a consistency determination will be required for
each major decision. It is the responsibility of the federal agency to ensure that the development
project continues to be consistent with the TCMP to the maximum extent practicable throughout
the project's various phases.

 d. Federal Activities: Determinations for Activities Initiated Prior to Federal Anrmroval of the
     TCMP (15 CFR ï¿½930.38)

       A consistency determination is required for ongoing federal activities (other than
development projects initiated prior to federal approval of the TCMP) that can be reassessed and
modified by the federal agency. In such cases, the federal agency must provide the secretary of
the Council with a consistency determination no later than 120 days after TCMP approval.

       Additionally, federal agencies must provide a consistency determination to the secretary
of the Council for major, phased federal development project decisions which are made
following TCMP approval that are related to development projects initiated prior to approval.
Federal agencies are required to consider the effects on CNRAs not fully evaluated at the outset
of the project. This provision does not apply to phased federal decisions which were specifically
described, considered, and approved prior to TCMP approval (e.g., in a final environmental
impact statement issued pursuant to NEPA).

 e. Federal Activities: Council Referral and Review Procedures (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.41 and 930.42)

       Upon receipt of a consistency determination, the Council has 45 days within which to
notify the federal agency of its agreement or disagreement with the determination (see fig. 2).
The Council will review a consistency determination if any three members of the Council agree
the determination presents a significant unresolved issue regarding consistency with the goals
and policies of the TCMP and place the matter on the agenda of a meeting of the Council for
review. If the Council does not place the federal agency activity on the agenda of a Council
meeting for review within the 45-day period, the Council chair must inform the federal agency of
the status of the matter and the basis for further delay and request an extension of time to review

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-18                         August 1996







the matter.

       The federal agency is required to approve the first 15-day extension. However, the
federal agency may agree to an extension exceeding 15 days or to an additional extension period
based on the complexity and magnitude of the information contained in the consistency
determination (see "General Consistency Determinations"). The federal agency cannot take final
action sooner than 90 days from the issuance of the consistency determination to the Council
unless both the federal agency and the state agency agree to an alternative period.

       If the Council votes to disagree with the consistency determination, it must include in its
response to the federal agency its reasons for the disagreement and supporting information. The
Council response must explain how the proposed activity will be inconsistent with the specific
elements of the TCMIP and describe alternative measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the
federal agency, would allow the activity to proceed in a manner consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the TCMP.

       If the Council's disagreement is based on the federal agency's failure to supply sufficient
information, the Council's response must describe the nature of the information requested and the
necessity of having such information to determine the consistency of the federal activity with the
TCMP. The Council is required to send the Assistant Administrator a copy of the responses
which describe disagreements with the federal agency consistency determination.

 f. Srnecial Consistency Review Process for Develourment Projects for which an Interaeencv
    Coordination Grout is Formed

       The Council's consistency review rules establish a special consistency review procedure
for federal development projects. It is modelled after the successful interagency coordination
process employed by the Port of Houston Authority and the Galveston District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in planning the deepening and widening of the Houston-Galveston
Navigation Channels in Galveston Bay. This project is one of the most significant federal
agency undertakings ever planned for Texas' coastal zone.

       After years of sometimes contentious planning, in 1990 the Galveston District created the
Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) in conjunction with the nonfederal sponsor of the
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels. Made up of state and federal resource agencies, the
ICT was formed to assist the Port and the Corps in project design, and drafting environmental
documentation to fully address all environmental concerns. The ICT was integrally involved in
assessing the project's impacts and developing plans to protect and restore Galveston Bay.
Because it was based on consensus decision-making, the ICT process resulted in a proposed
project that enjoys broad support among the public and state and federal resource agencies.

       To encourage other federal agencies to pursue this type of consensus-based process, the
Council adopted 31 TAC ï¿½506.28(b). This provision is intended to fold the consistency review
process into the overall project assessment and design process. A federal agency must establish
an "interagency coordination group (ICG)," like the ICT established for the Houston-Galveston
Navigation Channels project. Basically, 31 TAC ï¿½506.28(b) offers federal agencies a quidpro
quo. If the federal agency agrees to make its project assessment and design decisions

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part H1 5-19                         August 1996







collaboratively through a public process, the Council agrees to make its consistency decision
through that same process.

       To take advantage of 31 TAC ï¿½506.28(b), a federal agency must ensure that the following
prerequisites are met:

  *    The ICG's purview must extend to the overall impacts and design of the federal
       development project, not solely to the consistency determination. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.11,
       definition of "Interagency Coordination Group").

  *    Voting members of the ICG must include the nonfederal project sponsor and all state and
       federal resource agencies with jurisdiction over the project. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.11,
       definition of "Interagency Coordination Group"). This must include at least three
       Council member agencies. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.28.)

  *    The ICG process must contain opportunities for participation by citizens and local
       governments. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.11, definition of "Interagency Coordination Group").

  *    The majority of Council agency representatives on the ICG must find the project
       consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP. In addition, the ICG must find the
       project consistent. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.28.)

  *    The federal agency must adopt the ICG's consistency finding and submit it to the
       Council. (See 31 TAC ï¿½506.28.)

       The ICG process includes opportunities for participation by citizens and local
governments. First, 31 TAC ï¿½505.11 anticipates that the federal agency will include
representatives of the public and affected interest groups in the early "scoping" phase of the
project, when alternatives are evaluated and designed and the federal agency chooses a preferred
alternative. Second, public participation will take place through the public notice and comment
opportunities provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The federal agency's
NEPA environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project
must address the CZMA consistency requirement. Since the public will be able to review and
comment on the EA or EIS, the public can review and comment on the consistency of the
project. The full Council will seek public comment on the consistency of the project in
coordination with the NEPA process. In addition, the Council representatives serving on the
ICG will report to the full Council at its quarterly public meetings.

       Another provision, 31 TAC ï¿½506.28(c), also relates to the proposed plan for deepening
and widening of the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels. Essentially, it recognizes that the
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Project constitutes the Port's and the Galveston
District's comprehensive long-term plan to make all dredging related to these channels consistent
with the goals and policies of the TCMP.

       To keep the channels at their proper depths until this comprehensive plan is implemented,
however, it is likely that there will be a need for periodic maintenance dredging. An October
1994 memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Council and the Galveston District

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-20                          August 1996







           establishes a process for consistency review of federal maintenance dredging over the next five
           years. The products of the reviews under the MOA are long-term plans for the maintenance
is ~~dredging of each commercial waterway project in the coastal zone.

                  The Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Project already provides such a plan that is
           consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP. Therefore, the TCMP calls for a special
           process for obtaining a consistency agreement for maintenance dredging of the channel in the
           interim between federal approval of the TCMiP and implementation of the plan. Under 31 TAC
           ï¿½506.28(c), interim maintenance dredging associated with the Houston-Galveston Navigation
           Channels Project is presumed to be consistent with 31 TAC ï¿½501.1 4()( 1) and the associated
           provisions of the TCMP's dredging and dredged material placement policy, including the
           beneficial use provisions. This provision creates a substantive presumption of consistency, not a
           procedural exception. Therefore, it requires the interim maintenance dredging of the Houston
           Galveston Navigation Channels Project to undergo a consistency review under the MOA referred
           to in 31 TAG ï¿½506.24(c) to determine if it meets the conditions in 31 TAG ï¿½506.28(c) for a
           presumption of consistency.

                  Thereafter, if the interim maintenance dredging takes place in a manner that is
           substantially consistent with the current environmental assessment or environmental impact
           statement for the project, and the project is not modified, then the maintenance dredging project
           shall be presumed substantively consistent with all provisions of the dredging and dredged
           material placement policy.

. 5~~~. Federal A~rencv Actions (15 CFR ï¿½ ï¿½930.50, 930.57, and 930.58)

                  Applicants for federal actions listed in 31 TAG ï¿½506.12 must conduct the proposed
           federal action in a manner that is consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP. Applicants
           must submit a consistency certification to the Council secretary upon filing the application with
           the federal agency. The consistency certification must read as follows:

                  "The proposed federal agency action is consistent with the TCMvP goals and
                  policies and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program."

                  In addition to the consistency certification, the applicant for a federal action must furnish
          the state with: (1) a detailed description of the proposed action and its associated facilities
           adequate to permit an assessment of their probable effects on coastal natural resources; (2) a list
           identifying all federal, state, and local permits or authorizations subject to the TCMP and
          required for the proposed action and its associated facilities; (3) a brief assessment relating the
          probable effects of the proposed action and its associated facilities on CNRAs to the relevant
           elements of the TCMP; and (4) a brief set of findings, derived from the assessment, indicating
          that the proposed activity, its associated facilities, and their effects are all consistent with the
          goals and policies of the TCMP. A copy of the federal application and al supporting material
          provided to the federal agency may be submitted to meet the requirements of (l) above if the
          materials contain the required information.

                  Maps, diagrams, technical data, and other relevant material must be submitted when a
          written description will not adequately describe the proposed activity. The applicant must give

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 5-21                          August 1996







appropriate weight to the goals and policies of the TCMP. The proposed activity must be
consistent with the enforceable policies. Federal regulations require the applicant to adequately
consider "encouragement" or advisory policies of the TCMP; however, the Council cannot base i
its finding of consistency on these policies.

       At the request of the applicant, the state will provide assistance for developing the
assessment and findings required in (2) and (3) above.

       Upon receipt of an administratively complete consistency certification, the Council will
conduct a consistency review of the activity. If the activity is found to be consistent, the Council
will issue a consistency concurrence. A federal agency may, if allowed under federal law or
regulation, continue its permitting or authorization process and issue the permit if the application
mieets federal requirements upon the issuance of a concurrence or a conclusive presumption of
concurrence.-

       To avoid delays, applicants for federal licenses and permits must, to the extent
practicable, consolidate related federal and state license and permit activities subject to
consistency review. Council objection to one or more of the federal license or permit activities
submitted for consolidated review does not prevent the applicant from receiving federal agency
approval for those federal license and permit activities found to be consistent.

       To avoid duplication and delays in consistency reviews of equivalent state and federal
permits, a provision of the federal consistency review rule allows the Council to direct that one
or the other of the permits be reviewed for consistency, but not both. Equivalent state and
federal permits are those that authorize the same activities because they have as their legal
foundation the same or very similar statutory origins. For example, a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency NPDES permit would be equivalent to a state TNRCC or RRC wastewater
discharge permit. These permits cover the same activities--discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States--and are related legally. Both TNRCC and RRC are using their statutory
wastewater discharge authorities to obtain authorization from EPA to operate the NPDES
program in Texas in lieu of EPA. A second example is federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material and state TNRCC and RRC certifications of
compliance with water quality standards. They cover the same activities and are both based on
requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.

       If an equivalent state permit falls below the threshold for referral established under the
state consistency review rule (Chapter 505, Subchapter B), the Council may only detennine the
agency or subdivision action's consistency by using the process provided in 31 TAC Chapter
505 (relating to Council Procedure for State Consistency with Coastal Management Goals and
Policies). If an equivalent state permit is for a proposed action above the threshold for referral
established under the state consistency review rule (Chapter 505, Subchapter B), the Council
may determine the consistency of the agency or subdivision action or of the federal license or
permit, but not both.

       The chairman or three members of the Council must notify' the applicant if additional
information is required to review the consistency certification. If the chairman or three members
of the Council have not notified the applicant of the need for more information within 15 days of

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part UI 5-22                         August 1996







           receipt of the certification, the certification will be considered complete for purposes of
Is ~~commencement of Council review.



            a. Federal Azencv Actions: Council Referral and Review Procedures (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.60,
               930.63, and 930.64 and 31 TAG ï¿½ï¿½506.33 and 506.34)

                  Federal regulations limit the time within which the states can issue consistency
           concurrences or objections to six months from receipt of the consistency certification. The
           Council will review any consistency certification for a federal action that any three members
           agree presents a significant unresolved dispute regarding consistency with the goals and policies
           of the TCM4P. The consistency certification must be referred within 45 days of receipt of an
           administratively complete consistency certification. If a consistency certification has not been
           referred within 45 days, the action is conclusively presumed to be consistent. Although federal
           regulations allow the Council to take 90 days to refer the consistency certification and 180 days
           to concur with or object to the certification, the Council compressed the time schedule to
           conform procedures for review of federal actions to the procedures for review of state and
           subdivision actions.

                  If a decision has not been issued within 45 days following receipt of an administratively
           complete consistency certification, the applicant and the federal agency must be notified in
           writing of the status of the matter and the basis for fuirther delay.

 0               ~~~~~If three members of the Council refer the matter to the Council for review, the Council
           must review and make a finding regarding the consistency of the proposed action with the TCMP
           within 90 days following receipt of the administratively complete consistency certification. If
           the activity described in the consistency certification is found to be inconsistent with the TCMP
           goals and policies, the Council will issue a consistency objection.

                  The only basis on which the Council may object to a consistency certification is: (1) the
           proposed activity is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP, or (2) the applicant
           failed to provide the required information and data listed in this chapter after receiving a written
           request from the state.

                  Council objections will describe: (1) how the proposed activity is inconsistent with the
           specific elements of the TCMP; (2) alternative measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the
           applicant, would permit the proposed activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the
           TCMIP; (3) the nature of the information requested and the necessity of having such information
          to determine the consistency of the proposed activity if the objection is on the grounds of
           insufficient information; and (4) a statement informing the applicant of a right of appeal to the
           Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce if the proposed activity is inconsistent with the
           TCMP but consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest
           of national security.

                  Following receipt of a consistency objection, the federal agency shall not proceed with
          the federal action except under special circumstances described later in this chapter. If the

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 5-23                           August 1996







federal agency determines that an application will not be approved while the state is conducting
its consistency review, the federal agency must immediately notify the applicant and the
chairman.


       The Council will work with the applicant and the federal agency during the consistency
review period to resolve any disputes concerning the proposed federal agency action and to agree
on conditions, which, if met by the applicant, will result in state concurrence and meet federal
permit requirements.

 b. Federal AQencv Actions: General Concurrence (15 CFR ï¿½930.53(c) and 31 TAC ï¿½506.35)

       The Council reserves the right to issue a general concurrence for minor federal agency
actions that are individually inconsequential but that will cumulatively result in adverse effects
on CNRAs. Minor federal agency actions that satisfy the conditions of the general concurrence
are not subject to the consistency certification requirements of the previous section.

6. Outer Continental Shelf Plans (I15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.74, 930.76, and 930.77 and 31 TAC ï¿½506.40)

       OCS plans submitted to the Secretary of the Interior or a designee must include
consistency certifications ensuring consistency with the TCMP of the federal actions that will be
taken to authorize activities described in the OCS plan. The consistency certification must read
as follows:

       "The proposed activities described in detail in this plan comply with Texas'
       approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner
       consistent with such program."

       The person submitting the OCS plan must identify all federal agency actions described in
detail in the plan which are subject to federal consistency review and be satisfied that the
proposed federal agency actions will be consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMvP
before submitting the consistency certification.

       In addition to the consistency certification, the person submitting the plan must furnish
the Council secretary with the following: (1) a detailed description of the proposed activities and
their associated facilities adequate to permit an assessment of their probable effects on CNRAs;
(2) a list identifying all federal, state, and local actions subject to the TCMP and required for the
proposed activities and their associated facilities; (3) a brief assessment relating the probable
effects of the proposed activities and their associated facilities on CNRAs to the relevant
elements of the TCMP; and (4) a brief set of findings, derived from the assessment, indicating
that federal actions proposed to authorize each of the proposed activities will be consistent with
the goals and policies of the TCMP.

       Maps, diagrams, technical data, and other relevant material must be submitted when a
written description will not adequately describe the proposed activity. The person submitting the
plan must give appropriate weight to the goals and policies of the TCMP. The proposed
activities must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the TCMiP. Federal regulations

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-24                            August 1996







require the applicant to adequately consider advisory policies of the TCMP; however, the
Council cannot base its concurrence regarding consistency on these policies.

        The person submitting the OCS plan is responsible for furnishing the Council with a copy
of the plan (excluding proprietary information) and consistency certification. (See ï¿½506.40).

        Persons submitting OCS plans are strongly encouraged to work with other federal
agencies in an effort to include, for consolidated state agency review, consistency certifications
and supporting data and information applicable to OCS-related federal agency actions affecting
CNRAs which are not required to be described in detail in OCS plans but which are subject to
TCMP consistency review. If the person does not consolidate such OCS-related federal agency
actions with the TCMP consistency review of the OCS plan, such activities will remain subject
to TCMP consistency review under the requirements for federal agency actions.

       The chairman or three members of the Council must notify the person submitting the plan
if additional information is required to review the consistency certification. If the chairman or
three members of the Council have not notified the person of the need for more information
within 15 days of receipt of the certification, the certification will be considered complete for
purposes of commencement of Council review.

 a. OCS Plans: Council Referral and Review Procedures (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.79, 930.80, and 930.81
    and 31 TAC ï¿½ ï¿½506.42, 506.43, and 506.44)

       Federal regulations state that the Council must issue consistency concurrences or
objections within six months of receipt of the consistency certification. The Council will review
any consistency certification for a federal action described in detail in the OCS plan that three
members of the Council agree presents a significant unresolved issue regarding consistency with
the goals and policies of the TCMP. Three members of the Council must refer the consistency
certification within 45 days of receipt of an administratively complete consistency certification.
If a decision has not been made by the Council within 45 days, then the Council chairman must
notify the person submitting the plan, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant
Administrator of the reason for the delay. If the Council does not refer the consistency
certification within 45 days of receipt of the certification, the Council's concurrence with the
consistency certification is conclusively presumed.

       If the certification is referred, the Council must review and find whether the proposed
action is consistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP within 90 days of the date the
Council secretary received the certification. If the action described in the consistency
certification is found to be inconsistent with the TCMP goals and policies by a two-thirds
majority of the Council, the Council will issue a consistency objection.

       The only basis on which the Council may object to a consistency certification is: (1) the
proposed action is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the TCMP; or (2) the applicant
failed to provide the required information listed under "Procedures for Outer Continental Shelf
Plans" after receiving a written request from the state.

       Council objections will provide a separate discussion for each objection and describe: (1)

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-25                          August 1996







how the proposed action will be inconsistent with the TCMIP goals and policies; (2) alternative
measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the applicant, would permit the proposed action to
be conducted in a manner consistent with the TCMP; (3) the nature of the information requested
and the necessity of having such information to determine the consistency of the proposed action
if the objection is on the grounds of insufficient information; and (4) a statement informing the
applicant of a right of appeal to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce if the
proposed action is inconsistent with the TCMIP but consistent with the objective or purposes of
the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of national security.


       Following receipt of a consistency objection, the federal agency cannot take the federal
action when it is proposed except under special circumstances described later in this chapter. A
Council objection to one or more of the OCS-related federal actions submitted for consolidated
review does not prevent the person from receiving federal agency approval for: (1) those OCS-
related federal actions found to be consistent with the TCMP; and (2) the federal actions
described in detail in the OCS plan, provided the Council concurs with the consistency
certification for such plan. Similarly, a Council objection to the consistency certification for an
OCS plan does not prevent the person from receiving federal agency approval for those OCS-
related federal actions determined by the Council or conclusively presumed to be consistent with
the TCMIP.

       The Council will work with the applicant and the federal agency during the consistency
review period to resolve any problems with the proposed action and to agree on conditions,
which, if met by the applicant, will result in state concurrence and meet federal permit
requirements.

       If the Council finds that the actions described in detail in the OCS plan are consistent
with the TCMP goals and policies and issues a concurrence, or if concurrence is conclusively
presumed, the person who submitted the plan will not be required to submit additional
consistency certifications and supporting information for Council consistency review at the time
federal applications are actually filed for the federal actions to which the concurrence applies.

       A person who submits an OCS plan which receives TCMP concurrence must send the
Council secretary copies of applications for actions described in detail in the OCS plan. To
allow the state to monitor the activities, these applications must be sent to the Council secretary
after they are filed. Confidential and proprietary material within such applications need not be
included.

 b. Amended or New OCS Plans (I15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.83-930.85)

       If the Council objects to a person's OCS plan and an appeal under Subpart H of 15 CFR
Part 930 is unsuccessfuil, the person must submit an amended or new plan to the Secretary of the
Interior and to the Council secretary along with a consistency certification and information
necessary to support the new consistency determination. The information must specifically
describe the modifications made to the original OCS plan, and how the modifications will ensure
that all of the proposed federal actions described in detail in the amended or new plan will be
conducted in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the TCOMP.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 5-26                          August 1996







                   Consistency review for amended or new plans begins upon receipt of a copy of the
           amended or new OCS plan, consistency certification, and accompanying information. If no
is ~~decision is issued within the review period, the Council is conclusively presumed to concur with
           the person's consistency certification. The consistency review requirements for OCS plans
           described above apply to consistency review of amended or new OCS plans.

            c. Comntliance with OCS Plans (15 CFR ï¿½930.86)

                   The U.S. Department of the Interior and the Council are required to cooperate in their
           efforts to monitor federally licensed and permitted activities described in detail in OCS plans to
           make certain that such activities continue to conform to both federal and state requirements.

                  If Council members find that a person is failing substantially to comply with an approved
           OCS plan subject to the requirements described above, and that such failure involves the conduct
           of activities affecting CNRAs in a manner that is not consistent with the approved TCMP, the
           Council may review the matter.

                  If the Council finds that the person is failing substantially to comply with an approved
           OCS plan, the Council will inform the Minerals Management Service. The claim must include:
           (1) a description of the specific activity involved and the alleged lack of compliance with the
           OCS plan, and (2) a request for appropriate remedial action. A copy of the claim must be sent to
           the person and the Assistant Administrator.

                  If, after a reasonable time following the request for remedial action, the Council
           maintains that the person is failing to comply substantially with the OCS plan, the governor or
           the Council may file a written objection with the Secretary of Commerce. If the Secretary of
           Commerce finds that the person is failing to comply substantially with the OCS plan, the person
           must submit an amended or new OCS plan along with a consistency certification and supporting
           information to the Secretary of the Interior and to the secretary of the Council.

                  Following such a finding by the Secretary of Commerce, the person must comply with
           the originally approved OCS plan, or with interim orders issued jointly by the Secretary of
           Commerce and the Minerals Management Service, pending approval of the amended or new
           OCS plan. The review process for amended or new OCS plans applies to further Council review
           of the consistency certification for the amended or new plan.

                  A person will be found to have failed substantially to comply with an approved OCS plan
           if the Council claims, and the Secretary of Commerce finds, that one or more of the activities
           described in detail in the OCS plan which affects CNRAs are being conducted or are having an
           effect on CNRAs substantially different from that originally described by the person in the plan
           or accompanying information and, as a result, that the activities are no longer being conducted in
           a manner consistent with the TCMP.

                  The Secretary of Commerce may make a finding that a person has failed substantially to
*         ~~~comply with an approved OCS plan only after providing a reasonable opportunity for the person
           and the Secretary of the Interior to review the Council's objection and to submit comments for
           the Secretary of Commerce's consideration.

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part UI 5-27                           August 1996







7. State and Local Government Applications for Federal Assistance (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.94, 930.95
   and 31 TAC ï¿½506.50)

       The Council will use the Texas Review and Comment System (TRACS) and its time
frames to review state and local government applications for federal assistance. The Texas
Review and Comment System is the intergovernmental review process established under
Executive Order 12372. TRACS establishes a statewide system that provides state and local
officials opportunities to review and comment upon state plans, applications for federal or state
financial assistance, and environmental impact statements related to projects or programs that
affect their jurisdiction before the proposals are approved or funded.

       While state and local government applicants for federal assistance programs must
undertake their proposed activities in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the
TCMP, the procedural and information requirements for applicants for federal assistance are
those established by rule for TRACS (1 TAC ï¿½ï¿½5.191-5.253).

       The responsibility for providing copies of the application to the Council rests with the
State Single Point of Contact (SSPOC), established in TRACS to provide a clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Upon receiving an application or a notice of intent to file an
application from a state or local government for federal assistance listed under 31 TAC ï¿½506.12
of the federal consistency rule, the SSPOC will forward copies of the application or notice of
intent to the secretary of the Council.

  a. Federal Assistance: Council Referral and Review Procedures (15 CFR ï¿½ï¿½930.96-930.98 and
    31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½506.51 and 506.52)

       The Council will review state and local government applications for federal assistance
that three regular members refer to the Council. The Council must issue a consistency
concurrence or objection within 60 days of the date the SSPOC received the application if no
Notice of Intent was submitted. If a Notice of Intent was submitted by the applicant to the
SSPOC prior to submitting the application, the Council must issue a decision within 45 days of
the date the SSPOC received the application. Noncompetitive continuation grant applications
must be reviewed by the Council within 30 days of the SSPOC's receipt of the application.

       If the Council concurs with the proposed project, the federal agency may grant the federal
assistance to the applicant agency. Notwithstanding Council concurrence with the proposed
project, the federal agency may deny assistance to the applicant agency. Federal agencies should
not delay processing applications pending receipt of Council approval or objection. If a federal
agency determines that an application will not be approved, it must immediately notify the
applicant agency and the Council secretary.

       If the Council objects to the proposed project, the Council secretary will notify the
applicant agency, federal agency, and Assistant Administrator of the objection. Council
objections must describe: (1) how the proposed project is inconsistent with specific elements of
the TCMP; and (2) alternative measures (if they exist) which, if adopted by the applicant agency,
would permit the proposed project to be conducted in a manner consistent with the TCMP goals
and policies.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-28                           August 1996







        A Council objection may be based on a determination that the applicant agency has
failed, following a written Council request, to supply necessary information. If the Council
objects on the grounds of insufficient information, the objection must describe the nature of the

information requested and the necessity of having such information to determine the consistency
of the activity with the TCMP goals and policies.

        Council objections must include a statement informing the applicant agency of a right of
appeal to the Secretary of Commerce on the grounds described in Subpart H of Part 930 of the
federal regulations. Following receipt of a Council objection, the federal agency cannot approve
assistance for the activity except as provided in Subpart H of 15 CFR, Part 930.

       The Council will monitor proposed federal assistance activities not listed in the TCMP
rules. It will immediately notify all applicant agencies, federal agencies, and any other affected
agency or office identified in the intergovernmental review process of proposed activities which
can reasonably be expected to affect the TCMP area and which the Council is reviewing for
consistency with the TCMP. Notification will also be sent by the secretary of the Council to the
Assistant Administrator. The Council must inform the parties of objections within the time
period permitted under the intergovernmental review process; otherwise the Council waives its
right to object to the proposed activity.

       If, within the permitted time period, the Council notifies the federal agency of its
objection to a proposed federally assisted activity, the federal agency cannot provide assistance
to the applicant agency except as provided in Subpart H, unless the Assistant Administrator
disapproves the Council's decision to review the activity. The Assistant Administrator is guided
by the provisions of ï¿½ï¿½930.54(c) and (d).

8. Mediation of Disrutes bv the Secretary of Commerce (15 CFR, Part 930, Subpart G)

       If a serious disagreement arises between a federal agency and the Council while
conducting federal consistency review, the Secretary of Commerce may be requested to mediate
the disagreement. Secretarial mediation is available for: (1) license and permit disputes; (2)
previously reviewed federal license and permit activities; (3) negative consistency determination
disputes (for direct federal actions); (4) disputes concerning proposed direct federal actions; (5)
previously reviewed direct federal actions; (6) federal assistance disputes; and (7) previously
reviewed federal assistance activities.

       The use of informal means for resolving disputes is encouraged by the federal statute and
will be pursued by the Council whenever a disagreement arises. When informal means do not
resolve the disagreement, the procedures established under 15 CFR, Part 930, Subpart G and
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ï¿½33.206(g) will be followed.

9. Secretarial Review Related to the Objectives or Pumoses of the Act and National Security
   Interests (15 CFR, Part 930, Subpart H)

       Under federal regulation, the Secretary of Commerce may review a federal license or
permit activity, including those described in detail in an OCS plan, or a federal assistance activity

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 5-29                           August 1996







which the Council has found to be inconsistent with the TCMP and find the activity to be
permissible if it satisfies the following: (1) the activity furthers one or more of the competing
national objectives or purposes contained in ï¿½302 or ï¿½303 of the CZMA; (2) when performed                 0
separately or when its cumulative effects are considered, it will not cause adverse effects on
CNRAs substantial enough to outweigh its contribution to the national interest; (3) the activity
will not violate any requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended, or the Clean Water Act, as
amended; and (4) there is no reasonable alternative available (e.g., location or design) which
would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the TCMP.

       Additionally, an activity will be found permissible by the Secretary of Commerce if it is
necessary in the interest of national security. The federal regulations of 15 CFR, Part 930,
Subpart H establish procedures that must be followed to file an appeal for Secretarial review.

10. Review bv the Assistant Administrator on Behalf of Interested Parties (15 CFR, Part 930,
    Subpart I)

       The federal regulations establish procedures for interested parties to notify the Assistant
Administrator of federal actions which are believed (1) to be inconsistent with the TCMP but
which are not found to be so by the federal agency or the Council, and (2) to have been
incorrectly determined to be inconsistent with the TCMP. The subpart also provides for the
reporting of any federal actions found by the Assistant Administrator to be inconsistent with the
TCMP and for the performance review of state implementation of the federal consistency
provisions of 15 CFR, Part 930.























                                                                                                          e0

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 5-30                          August 1996







                                       CHAPTER SIX.
                             SPECIAL PLANNING ELEMENTS


A.     Shorefront Planning

1. Access to Gulf Beaches

       The Texas Open Beaches Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.011 et seq.) "declares
and affirms" the public's right to "free and unrestricted" access to and from "the state-owned
beaches bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico." On the "wet beach," between
the mean low and mean high tide lines, the public enjoys an access right by virtue of state
ownership and public trust. Above the high tide line, across the "dry beach" to the vegetation
line, the public enjoys an access right or public easement under common law concepts such as
custom, prescriptive right, and dedication. This dry beach easement is usually demonstrated by
the long-standing public use of nearly all parts of the Texas Gulf Coast.

       Under the Open Beaches Act, the burden of proof rests with the private landowner rather
than with the beach user in the event of a conflict regarding public traversal or use of private
land. The act prohibits the erection of any physical barrier that would impede public access to
the beach and any written or oral claim that the public beach is private property or that the public
does not have the right of access to it.

       The Open Beaches Act applies only to Gulf beaches. There are 367 miles of open Gulf
shoreline in Texas. Under the Open Beaches Act, 293 miles are open for public use. Of these,
173 miles are considered easily accessible; that is, accessible by driving along the shore or by
walldng no more than one mile from a point that can be reached by a two-wheel-drive vehicle
(Texas Energy and Natural Resources Advisory Council, 1982).

       The lead enforcement official for public beach rights under the Open Beaches Act is the
Texas Attorney General, who may act independently or on the request of the Commissioner of
the General Land Office. Other enforcement officials are the pertinent county attorney, district
attorney, or criminal district attorney. Remedies under the Act include (1) injunctions to remove
and prevent encroachments or other interferences with public beach access, (2) declaratory
judgements to clarify public and private rights, and (3) civil penalties.

       The Open Beaches Act directs the GLO to promulgate coastwide rules covering the
acquisition of beach accessways, beach user fees, protection of the public easement from erosion,
vehicular traffic on public beaches, contents of local beach access and use plans, and guidelines
for construction on land adjacent to public beaches. These rules (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10) were
adopted by the GLO on February 18, 1993.

       Coastal counties and municipalities are also required to develop dune protection and
beach access plans conforming to the GLO rules. These local plans were to be submitted to the
GLO by August 16, 1993, for a 60-day review to determine their compliance with the adopted
rules. Counties and municipalities whose plans are certified have ordinance power over
beachfront development, beach fees, and vehicular prohibitions. Amendments to the certified

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-1                          August 1996







plans must be submitted to the attorney general and the land commissioner for review. The
commissioner will certify an amendment if the action is consistent with the GLO rules and the
local beach access plan.

       No person may engage in construction landward of and adjacent to a public beach
without proper certification. Applicants are required to obtain, from the appropriate city or
county local government, a beachfront construction certificate which certifies that the activity is
consistent with the Open Beaches Act and will not obstruct public access to or use of the beach.
For construction in critical dune areas, an applicant must obtain a dune protection permit from
the proper local authority. This dune protection permit certifies that the activity will not
materially weaken dunes or dune vegetation seaward of the local government's dune protection
line.

       The attorney general, independently or at the request of the land commissioner or any
county, district, or district criminal attorney, can file suit to prevent uncertified activity. In the
same suit, the attorney general, land commissioner, or local attorney can recover penalties and
costs for removing the obstruction from the public easement. The violator is liable for a civil
penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $1000 a day. Coastal areas within state or national
parks are exempt from the planning directive.

       One required element of the local plan is a description and map of all accessways to the
public beach. Another element is a vehicular control plan which describes short- and long-term
goals, beach user fees, dune protection for new beach accessways, and identification of fee and
non-fee areas. If a local government proposes to close the beach to vehicles, the beach access
plan must detail the provisions that will be made for equal or better access. Standards for
preserving and enhancing public beach use and access are included in the GLO rules (31 TAC
15.7(g)). The GLO will use information in the local plans to compile an inventory of beach
access points and will enter this information into its geographic information system database.

2. Access to Bavshores and Coastal Waters

       Texas does not have a regulatory equivalent of the Open Beaches Act for bay shorelines.
Access to public bayshore areas (federal, state, county, or city parks and refuges) is protected by
the various public entities that own and operate recreational facilities. Chapter 33 of the Texas
Natural Resources Code gives priority to public access to and use of coastal waters over
individual use. Bayshore access afforded by public highway rights-of-way is protected by the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). TxDOT adheres to a policy of allowing these
rights-of-way to be used for access to the bayshores as long as such usage does not create a
hazard to public safety.

       The Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP, 1990), developed by the TPWD, notes that
there is considerable access to saltwater resources in the Houston/Galveston area but that access
to Galveston Bay should be improved. Saltwater resources are abundant along the "Golden
Crescent" and "Coastal Bend" regions of the Texas coast, but many areas lack access or facilities
or are overcrowded. The TPWD oversees the state's boat ramp construction program, which
offers matching grants to local sponsors.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-2                         August 1996







                     The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP) included in its Comprehensive
              Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), called the Galveston Bay Plan, provisions for the
              development and implementation of a shoreline access plan. In its five-year study of Galveston
              Bay, the GBNEP found that public access to the Galveston Bay shoreline needs to be improved
              and set the goal of improving public access (Galveston Bay Plan, April 1995, Action Plan SM-
              5). The plan recommends increasing access to public bay shorelines and improving public
              shoreline parks and other special public areas in a manner consistent with protection of the
              ecosystem.

              3. Enforceable Policies and Legal Authorities

                     The General Land Office, Office of the Attorney General, and coastal municipalities and
              counties manage access to coastal waters or beaches or certify activities for compliance with the
              Open Beaches Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. ï¿½61.001 et seq.; 31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½ 15.1-15.10).

              4. Funding Programs

                     The GLO rules for management of the beach/dune system allow local governments with
              approved dune protection and beach access plans to collect fees for use of the public beach.
              These fees may be applied to the acquisition and maintenance of off-beach parking and
              accessways (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.8(f)). State grants for enhancement of access and facilities are
              available to coastal communities from the TPWD's Land and Water Conservation Fund and
              Texas Recreation and Parks Account.

0


























              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-3                         August 1996







B. Shoreline Erosion Resinonse

1. Introduction0

       The Texas coastline is composed of barrier islands, ancient deltaic headlands, chenier
plains, peninsulas, bays and estuaries, and natural and man-made passes. These are dynamic
environments, constantly reshaped by the natural processes of erosion and accretion. They are
dependent on the balance between sea level, sediment supply, and wave and tidal energy for
stability.

       Erosion is a subject of primary concern on the Texas coast, where it has serious adverse
effects on beaches and bayshores and contributes to habitat degradation and loss. Prime tourist
beaches ar vanishing; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is threatened by the possibility of a major
breach at Sargent Beach; and agricultural and industrial lands, infrastructure, and homes are
being destroyed. The erosion is attributed to relative rise in sea level and to the fact that the
sediment removed by wave energy exceeds that supplied to the beach by longshore currents.
Humans also contribute to erosion by altering natural sedimentation patterns through
development and shoreline stabilization.

       Rivers are the primary source of sand for the building of barriers and beaches in the
western Gulf of Mexico. Climate change has caused natural reductions in the sediment supply,
but human activities have exacerbated the problem. Flood-control structures have blocked
sediment transport in many rivers.

       Only small sections of the Texas Gulf shoreline have been stabilized by erosion-response0
structures. Hard or rigid structures erected to prevent or slow erosion or protect the shoreline
include jetties, groins, breakwaters, rubble mounds, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, retaining walls,
and revetments. Erosion-response structures protect property against erosion. But while
landward properties may benefit, adjacent bayshore property or beaches and dunes may not.
Wave energy reflected by the structures enhances erosion at the structure's base and end points.
Overtopping and scouring by waves can undermine a seawall and eventually cause it to collapse.
Any erosion-response structure that protrudes into the intertidal zone alters the sediment budget
by either intercepting sand transported by longshore currents or preventing sand from entering
the littoral system.

       Erosion rates vary along the Texas Gulf Coast. Trends in shoreline change are
determined from topographic map, aerial photo, and beach profile data spanning a time period of
decades or longer. Average rates of shoreline erosion can be significant, including greater than 5
feet per year along nearly 14 miles of the Jefferson County coastline, 24 feet per year at Sargent
Beach; nearly 13 feet per year at Packery Channel on north Padre Island; and up to 7 feet per
year at South Padre Island (Morton, 1975; Morton, 1993).

       Erosion is not confined to the Texas Gulf beaches; it also affects the bay systems, where
it causes the loss of agricultural, industrial, and residential lands and productive wetlands.
Shoreline erosion rates have been measured for about half of the state's bay shorelines, including
those of Galveston, Matagorda, San Antonio, Copano, and Corpus Christi bays. In total, about is
two-thirds of Texas bay shores are eroding at rates of two to nine fl/yr (Morton and Paine, 1990).

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part BI 6-4                          August 1996







2. Identifvinc and Assessine Shoreline Erosion

        In 1973, the 63rd Texas Legislature directed the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at
the University of Texas at Austin to calculate the erosion rates along the Texas Gulf shoreline.
The outcome was a series of published reports (Morton, 1974 and 1975; Morton and Pieper,
1975a, 1975b, 1977; Morton et al., 1976).

       In 1991, recognizing that coastal erosion was a significant problem, the 71st Texas
Legislature passed Senate Bill 1053, designating the Texas General Land Office as the lead state
agency to coordinate erosion avoidance and remediation for the Texas coast. The GLO, in
cooperation with state and federal agencies and local governments, is developing a coastwide
policy for managing coastal erosion to identify Texas Gulf beaches that are eroding and rank
them from most to least critical, and to implement a comprehensive long-term management plan
for the restoration of the state's critically eroding beaches. This coastwide erosion plan will be
submitted to the legislature with recommended actions.

       In 1993, the BEG published Open-File Report 93-1, "Shoreline Movement Along
Developed Beaches of the Texas Gulf Coast: A Users' Guide to Analyzing and Predicting
Shoreline Changes." This report included a corresponding historical shoreline change map
(Morton, 1993). Together, these documents describe historical shoreline changes for most of the
developed sections of the Texas coastline. Copies of the map are available for public review at
local government planning offices and at the GLO.

       The BEG report will be one of the tools used for identification and ranking of critical
erosion areas and the development of the coastwide erosion plan. Other criteria that will be
considered in ranking eroding areas and mitigating coastal erosion are: shoreline length and
width, type of sediment, and coastal processes (wind direction, wave height, period, and
direction, and tidal range); potential impacts on structures, public infrastructure, local economy,
and natural resources, and the benefits gained by protecting them; public support and
involvement; feasibility and cost of restoring the eroded shoreline; environmental impacts of
restored shorelines on the beach, nearshore, or dunes; distance from an inlet or pass; the
projected life of any proposed erosion response project; the amount of public subsidy and the
public and private benefits; and existing shoreline beach nourishment or maintenance programs.

       Because the cost of restoring eroding areas is high and funding is limited, priorities must
be set. The coastwide erosion response plan will be the basis for prioritization of shore
protection and restoration projects.


3. Manacement of Erodina Areas

       Shorefront property commands the highest price but carries with it the greatest risks of
flooding and erosion. Most coastal landowners can tell if their property is eroding. Usually,
what they recognize is short-term shoreline changes caused by storms or human activities. The
GLO has defined an eroding area as "a portion of the shoreline which is experiencing a historical
erosion rate of greater than two ft/yr based on published data of the University of Texas at
Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology."

Texas Coastal Management Program Final ElS    Part II 6-5                         August 1996







       Applicants proposing construction in eroding areas, which are designated for special
management, must follow strict guidelines. Structures must be elevated on pilings in accordance
with FEMA standards and designed for feasible relocation; with limited exception, permittees
may not pave or alter the ground below the lowest habitable floor; financial assurance to fund
eventual relocation (flood insurance) must be supplied; and structures must be designed to
minimize impacts on natural hydrology and not cause erosion. Private erosion response
structures are prohibited for Gulf-fronting properties except for retaining walls located at least
200 feet landward of the line of vegetation. These restrictions are established by the GLO rules
for management of the beach/dune system (31 TAC ï¿½ 15.6(f)). Eroding areas have not been
formally designated by the state; however, local governments have included the special
provisions governing construction in their dune protection and beach access plans. The
coastwide erosion plan will include recommendations for erosion response and will identify
critical erosion areas and the conditions where structural erosion control is appropriate.


4. Enforceable Policies and Legal Authorities

       The GLO, the Office of the Attorney General, the Corps of Engineers, and coastal
municipalities and counties manage or permit shorefront development and shore protection
projects (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½15.1-15.10; TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Ch. 33; and 33 U.S.C. ï¿½1251 et
seq. (West 1986 and Supp. 1993)).

       The School Land Board issues leases and easements for structures on state-owned lands
that may increase the erosion hazard. A use or activity that may exacerbate erosion on state-
owned land must be approved in advance by the SLB. GLO staff conduct a site visit and work
with the applicant to determine the best method of erosion response based on a hierarchy of
stabilization techniques. The SLB currently may allow construction of some groins, bulkheads,
seawalls, detached breakwaters, and revetments along the state's bay shores if they are
determined to be the most appropriate erosion response method. Of the structural erosion-
response methods, riprap is preferred for bayshores because the material provides habitat for
aquatic life and helps absorb wave energy. Overall, however, the GLO encourages the use of
nonstructural methods for shoreline stabilization. The GLO's Surface Damage Fund has enabled
coastal Soil and Water Conservation Districts to successfully protect eroded bay shorelines with
temporary wave barriers and marsh grass plantings. This program, developed in coordination
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, has also been
successful in educating the public about the impacts of coastal and shoreline erosion.

       The GLO rules for management of the beach/dune system (31 TAC ï¿½ ï¿½ 15.1-15.10)
prohibit individual Gulf-front property owners from erecting erosion response structures. A
retaining wall may be permitted 200 feet landward of the natural vegetation line.

       The Coastal Management Program rules also contain the following enforceable policy:

              "Erosion of Gulf beaches and coastal shore areas caused by construction or
              modification of commercial navigable waterways or jetties, breakwaters,
              groins, or shore stabilization projects designed to support or to maintain
              commercially navigable waterways shall be mitigated to the extent the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-6                         August 1996







               costs are reasonably proportionate to the benefits. Factors to be
               considered in determining whether the costs of the mitigation are
               reasonably proportionate to the benefits include environmental benefits,
               recreational benefits, flood or storm damage prevention benefits, economic
               development benefits, and all other benefits that will be realized or lost."

5. Funding

       There is a need for a dedicated and permanent funding source for implementation of a
shore protection and restoration program in Texas. Project funding is now a local initiative,
shared with the state and federal government when possible.









































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-7                            August 1996







C. Enerffv Facility Siting-

1. Introduction

        The responsibility for developing energy plans and for permitting the siting and operation
of energy facilities is shared among several federal, state, and local agencies, and different
permitting processes apply to various types of energy facilities. In ï¿½304(6) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, the term "energy facilities" is defined as any equipment
or facility which is or will be used primarily in the exploration for, or the development,
production, conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or transportation of, any energy resource, or
for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, machinery, products, or devices
which are involved in any of these activities.

        The term includes, but is not limited to: (1) electric generating plants; (2) petroleum
refineries and associated facilities; (3) gasification plants; (4) facilities used for the
transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer, or storage of liquefied natural gas; (5) uranium
enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities; (6) oil and gas facilities, including platforms,
assembly plants, storage depots, tank farms, crew and supply bases, and refining complexes; (7)
facilities, including deepwater ports, for the transfer of petroleum; (8) pipelines and transmission
facilities; and (9) terminals which are associated with any of the aforementioned.

       The CZMA requirements for inclusion of an energy facility siting process in the state's
coastal management program are found in ï¿½923.13 of the regulations. The state must develop a
planning process capable of anticipating and managing impacts from energy facilities likely to be
located in, or that directly and significantly affect, the coastal zone. In developing this process,
the state must:

  *    identify energy facilities likely to locate in, or to directly and significantly affect, coastal
       natural resource areas;

    * establish procedures for assessing the suitability of sites, including evaluation of the costs
       and benefits of proposed and alternative sites in terms of state and national interest, as
       well as local concerns;

  ï¿½    identify enforceable state policies, authorities, and techniques for managing energy
       facilities and their impacts; and

  *    identify the process by which public and private parties will be involved in energy facility
       planning and siting.

       In describing the process for involvement of public and private parties in the siting
       process, the state must:

  ï¿½    identify the organization, structure, and procedure by which energy facility planning and
       siting decisions are carried out in the state;



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-8                              August 1996







  *    explain the respective roles of relevant local, state, and federal agencies, their relationship
       to the lead agency and the CMP requirements, and the role of other interested and
       affected parties in consistency review; and
     * provide a clear and detailed description of the administrative procedures and decision
       points where national interests shall be considered. (See Part 11, Chapter Seven,
       Consideration of the National Interest and Activities of Regional Benefit).

2. Enerev Facilities Likely to Locate on the Texas Coast

       The Texas Gulf Coast is slowly recovering from the economic devastation of the oil price
collapse in the early 1980s. Oil and, increasingly, natural gas remain mainstays of the region's
economy in the 1990s, but the Gulf Coast is less dependent on the various facets of the oil and
gas industry for its economic vitality. In general, the trend of crude oil production is downward.
The average 7.2 million barrels/month of domestic crude production during the first six months
of 1992 is the lowest level of production in more than 30 years (Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts, 1992). Natural gas production, however, remained constant over the ten-year period
ending in 1993, with a yearly production averaging 5.6 trillion cubic feet (Railroad Commission
of Texas, 1994). Natural gas production should play a greater role in the Texas economy
because of conversion of state agency and metropolitan transit authority vehicles to cleaner-
burning alternative fuels.

       To meet the continuing demand, energy production off the Texas coast will continue.
 Icreasing economic activity, population growth, and an improving standard of living will
contribute to a 15 percent rise in the demand for energy services from 1990 to 201 0 (Energy
Information Administration, 1993).

       Activities in the domestic energy market have slowed since the early 1980s, and existing
energy facility infrastructure on the Texas coast appears adequate to handle current needs.
However, it is anticipated that in addition to drilling new wells and workover of old wells, future
needs may include:

         *    oil and gas facilities, including platforms, assembly plants, storage depots, tank
               farms, crew and supply bases, and refining complexes;
         ï¿½    chemical and petrochemical complexes;
         ï¿½    electric generating plants;
         *    pipeline and transmission facilities;
         *    gasification plants;
         ï¿½    geothermal plants;
         *    ethanol plants;
            * terminals associated with al of the above; and
            * supporting infrastructure, such as manufacturing, production, or assembly plants.

       Resolution of issues pertaining to the treatment, storage, and disposal of radioactive
waste will continue to affect schedules for the siting and licensing of high-level and low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities and transportation infrastructure. In addition, new science


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 6-9                          August 1996







and engineering facilities and environmental cleanup and waste management facilities will be
important in the future. i

3. Procedures for Assessing the Suitability of Sites

       Energy facility planning and management is shared by local and state governments
through the zoning, permitting, and consistency review processes. Through Special Planning
Elements (ï¿½501.14(b) of the CMP goals and policies), consistency requirements (Chapters 505
and 506), and the issuance of permits and leases, the state will ensure that suitable sites for major
energy facilities are chosen and developed according to the goals and policies of the CMP.

       In addition, the GLO coordinates the use of the Resource Management Code (RMC)
system. For each tract, state and federal agency biologists, archaeologists, and engineers have
listed sensitive natural resources such as oyster reefs, bird rookery islands, and important aquatic
nursery areas. The RMCs alert users to other considerations that may also affect tract
development plans, such as the presence of archaeological shipwrecks, federal navigation
channel rights-of-way, and federally protected endangered species. The codes assigned to each
submerged state land tract indicate recommended guidelines for activities within the tract
boundaries. Codes are recommended by the Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Historical Commission, and Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department. The majority of the codes are designed to protect biologically sensitive
areas, but some promote navigational safety, preserve recreational values, and safeguard
archaeological and cultural features. To the extent that they have jurisdiction, local governments
are encouraged to apply these siting criteria to projects brought before them in the early stages of
planning.

       RMCs serve several purposes. First, they inform lessees and their project planners about
sensitive biologic habitats and other features of concern on state-owned submerged lands (6,000
tracts) in the bays and estuaries of the Texas coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, they also
inform lessees and project planners about the specific concerns that state and federal resource
agencies have regarding these sensitive areas. This helps prevent potential resource use conflicts
associated with the development of a state tract early in the planning process and therefore helps
protect CNRAs.

       The RMCs are updated and published in the "Notice for Bids" sent to a mailing list of
approximately 1,600 interested parties and industry before the semiannual sealed-bid lease sales
held by the SLB in April and October. The notice lists all state-owned submerged tracts
nominated for lease and contains the lease, bid form, and instructions for bidding.


4. Enforceable State Policies. Authorities. and Techniaues for Manarina Enerev Facilities
   and Their Imnacts

       Texas' approach to siting may be called "management of impacts." The state sets
performance standards to maintain the quality of the human and natural environment. These
performance standards are embodied in the policies of the CMP and implementing agencies, and
they are administered through the permitting process.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-10                           August 1996







        For example, ï¿½501.14(b)(1)(B) of the CMP goals and policies, regarding oil and gas
 production on state submerged lands and on private submerged lands, states that lessees,
easement holders, and permittees shall construct facilities in a manner that avoids impoundment
or draining of coastal wetlands if practicable, and shall mitigate any adverse effects on coastal
wetlands impounded or drained in accordance with the sequencing requirements in ï¿½501.14(h),
Development in Critical Areas. Adherence to this policy by agencies issuing permits for
proposed activities that may adversely affect critical areas will maintain environmental quality
and permit more accurate estimates of the impacts of proposed projects. The system will also
provide for accountability in decision-making: review criteria, findings, and justifications will
be provided to the applicant and interested parties.

       The GLO already has adequate jurisdiction over energy facility siting on state-owned
land. As steward of Public School Fund land, the GLO determines whether a proposed use of the
land is appropriate. The SLB and the commissioner of the GLO are authorized to make final
decisions about permitting the use of this land.

       The GLO and the SLB have authority over the siting of oil and gas exploration and
production facilities in the bays and estuaries, as well as offshore to the three-marine-league line
(approximately 10.36 miles), under Chapters 32, 33, 51, 52, and 53 of the Texas Natural
Resources Code and rules of the GLO and SLB (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½9, 13, & 155). The SLB is
authorized to permit and regulate the placement, design, construction, and use of structures that
extend onto coastal public submerged land from adjacent land not owned by the state and to
prescribe reasonable filing fees and fees for the granting of leases, easements, and permits. The
SLB may grant leases for public purposes; easements for the placement of structures for purposes
connected with the ownership of littoral property and for the construction of channels, wharves,
docks, and marinas; and channel easements to the holder of any surface or mineral interest in
coastal public submerged land for purposes necessary or appropriate to the use of the interest.

       Energy leasing has historically been a major part of the GLO's activities. The Energy
Division operates under administrative rules governing oil, gas, and hard mineral leasing. These
rules require energy leases to be consistent with the CUP. Guidelines drafted for subsurface
leasing in CNRAs will become policy through the rulemaking process. Requirements for plans
of operations will be adopted in rule form and will become binding on lessees through inclusion
in lease contracts. The GLO already requires approved plans of operations for hard mineral
leasing. In addition, activities within a state coastal preserve (state-owned submerged land
leased to TPWD for management) are subject to limitations on the use of the surface, including a
requirement that activities be consistent with the management plan designed for the area.

       To inventory and regulate oil and gas facilities already sited on the coast, the Oil Spill
Prevention and Response Act of 1991 requires operators of waterfront and offshore facilities that
drill, pump, store, handle, or transfer oil in Texas to apply for a discharge prevention and
response certificate. The GLO set spill prevention and response standards for these facilities in
rules, and the facilities must be certified in order to operate. A facility is not permitted to operate
without this certificate. As of August 1993, the GLO had issued 241 Coastal Facility
Certificates.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 6-11                           August 1996








       The GLO regulates seismic exploration as well as siting of all facilities including canals,
pipelines, and platforms on state-owned submerged lands.

       The following agencies regulate energy-related activities and structures on state and
private land:

  *    U.S. Army Corns of Engineers - dredging and filling in waters of the United States
       including wetlands.

  *    Railroad Commission of Texas - tidal disposal of oil and gas waste, drilling permits, 401
       certification of federal dredge and fill permits and federal oil and gas NPDES permits,
       solid waste disposal permits (including Class II injection and disposal well permits), and
       administration of pipeline safety regulations for intrastate pipelines.

  *    U.S. Environmental Protection Azencv - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
       System (NPDES) permits.

  *    Federal Enermv Regulatorv Commission - construction and temporary permitting of
       pipelines.

  *    U.S. Denartment of Transportation - safety standards, design, installation, inspection,
       emergency plans and procedures, operations, and maintenance in transportation of natural
       gas and hazardous liquids pipelines.

  ï¿½ U.S. Coast Guard - lighting, location, and apparatus operating requirements for pipelines,
       platforms, artificial islands, fixed structures, and navigational and free-floating structures.

       The Council's input into proposed siting decisions will be through the CMP consistency
process and through agency actions subject to the CMP. Siting of energy facilities, such as
petrochemical plants and utilities, will be subject to the regulatory authorities for permitting of
such facilities, including:

   *  water rights and water uses (TNRCC);
   ï¿½ wastewater permits (TNRCC);
   *  underground storage tanks (TNRCC);
   *  solid and hazardous waste disposal (TNRCC);
   *  air emissions (TNRCC);
   *  structures on state-owned submerged land (GLO/SLB);
   ï¿½  siting and operation of nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants and transmission lines (DOE);
   *  floodplain construction (FEMA and rules and ordinances of local governments);
   *  electric power generation, transportation, and distribution (PUC); and
   ï¿½  facility certification for oil spill pollution prevention (GLO).

5. Public and Private Party Particination in the Energv Facility Planning and Siting Process

       The public may attend meetings of all state agencies. If an agency's response to a
citizen's concern is unsatisfactory, the issue may be subject to adjudicatory hearings or other

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-12                          August 1996







dispute resolution processes and may, as set forth in the consistency rule, ultimately be referred
to the Coastal Coordination Council.

       In Texas, the Open Records Act (Chapter 552 TEX. GOV. CODE ANN.) provides the
public with ample opportunity to request information from state government. The Open Records
Act sets very specific time frames within which an agency must respond to a request, and it
shields from inspection only a few, very specific documents. The Open Meetings Act (Chapter
551 TEX. GOV. CODE ANN.) requires agencies' governing boards to act in public meetings and
provides the interested public full notice of and opportunity to comment on matters to be
deliberated on and actions to be taken at these meetings. This information typically includes the
type of activity to be authorized and it location. Finally, those agencies whose actions are subject
to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 2001 TEX. GOV. CODE ANN.) have adopted
rules giving the public further notice, comment, and public hearing opportunities. For a more
detailed explanation of these provisions, see Part II, Chapter Five, Ensuring Compliance with
Program Policies.

       The involvement of federal, state, and local governments, the public, and regional
agencies in the development and implementation of the CUT and in energy facility siting are
described in Part II, Chapter Eight, Public Participation and Federal Agency Consultation.
































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-13                         August 1996







D. Coastal Wetlands Management

1. Introduction

        Coastal wetlands are an integral part of estuarine ecosystems and have tremendous
biologic and economic value. Texas wetlands serve as nursery grounds for over 95 percent of the
recreational and commercial fish species found in the Gulf of Mexico; they provide breeding,
nesting, and feeding grounds for more than a third of all threatened and endangered animal
species and support many endangered plant species; and they provide permanent and seasonal
habitat for a great variety of wildlife, including 75 percent of North America's bird species.

       Coastal wetlands also perform many chemical and physical functions. Wetlands
temporarily retain certain pollutants such as suspended material, excess nutrients, toxic
chemicals, and disease-causing microorganisms. Marshes can filter nitrates and phosphates from
rivers and streams that receive wastewater effluent. Some pollutants associated with the trapped
material in wetlands may be converted by biochemical processes to less harmful forms, may
even remain buried, and may be taken up by the wetland plants and either recycled or transported
from the area. Wetlands help reduce erosion by absorbing and dissipating wave energy, binding
and stabilizing sediments, and increasing sediment deposition. Primarily because of their
topography or position in the landscape, wetlands can reduce, capture, and retain surface-water
runoff, thus providing storage capacity and overall protection during periods of flooding.
Wetlands also promote groundwater recharge by diverting, slowing, and storing surface water,
thus allowing infiltration and percolation of water into the saturated zone.

2. Status and Trends

       Estimates of wetland acreage in the 19 coastal counties in 1979 range from 611,760 acres
of fresh, brackish, and salt marshes (TPWD, 1988) to approximately 1.8 million acres of salt,
brackish, fresh, forested, and scrub-shrub wetlands (Field et al., 1991). This valuable resource is
disappearing at an alarming rate. The TPWD estimates that 35 percent of the state's coastal
marshes were lost between 1950 and 1979 (TPWD, 1988). The total loss of marshes in the river
deltas since the 1950s amounts to about 21,000 acres, or 29 percent of the river-delta marsh area
existing in the mid-1I950s (White and Calnian, 1990). In the Galveston Bay system, from the
1950s to 1989, there was a net loss of 33,400 acres, which amounts to 19 percent of the wetlands
that existed in the 1950s (White et al., 1993). The rate of loss, however, declined over time, from
about 1,000 acres per year between 1953 and 1979 to about 700 acres per year between 1979 and
1989.

3. Probable Causes of Loss and Degradation

       Wetland loss results from both natural processes and human activities. Table 2 lists the
probable causes of loss and degradation for the entire state, and Table 3 lists the causes and their
relative importance for the Galveston Bay system. Between the 1950s and 1989, subsidence
(primarily from groundwater withdrawal and, in some isolated areas, oil and gas production) and
relative sea-level rise converted 26,400 acres of emergent wetlands in the Galveston Bay system,
or about 30 percent of the total gross loss (88,500 acres), to open water and barren flats (White et
al., 1993). Approximately 5,700 acres of emergent wetlands in the Galveston Bay system were

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 1I 6-14                        August 1996








                                                Table 2


                 Statewide Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation
                                      (Modified from TPWD, 1 988)




  Direct:

                 1.   Drainage for crop and timber production and mosquito control.

                 2.   Dredging and stream channelization for navigation channels, flood protection,
                      shoreline floodplain housing development, and reservoir maintenance.
                 3.  Filling for dredged spoil and other solid waste disposal, roads and highways, and
                      commercial, residential, and industrial development.

                 4.   Construction of dikes, dams, levees, and seawalls for flood control, water supply,
                      irrigation, and storm protection.

                 5.   Discharges of materials (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, and other pollutants) into
                     wetlands.

                 6.   Mining of wetland soils for peat, coal, gravel, phosphate, and other materials.

  Indirect:

                 1.   Sediment diversion by dams, deep channels, and other structures.


                 2.   Hydrologic alterations by canals, spoil banks, roads, and other structures.

                3.   Subsidence due to extraction of groundwater, oil, gas, sulphur, and other
                     minerals.

                4.   Erosion from boat wakes.



                1.   Sea level rise.

                2. Droughts.
                3. Hurricanes and other storms.
                4.   Erosion.

                5.   Biotic effects (e.g., muskrat, nutria, grass carp, and goose  eat-outs").














Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-15                                     August 1996







                                                Table 3


                        Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation
                                 in the Galveston Bay System
                                   (Modified from White et al., 1993)




  Direct:

                 1. Drainage for crop production and expansion of upland range land. (Major)*

                 2.   Dredging and stream channelization for navigation channels, flood protection,
                      coastal housing developments, and reservoir maintenance. (Moderate)

                 3.  Filling for dredged spoil and other solid waste disposal, roads and highways, and
                      commercial, residential, and industrial development. (Moderate)

                 4.   Construction of dikes, levees, and seawalls for flood control, water supply,
                      industrial purposes, irrigation, and storm protection. (Major)

                 5.   Discharges of materials (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, other pollutants, nutrient
                      loading from domestic sewage and agricultural runoff, and sediments from
                      dredging and filling, and agricultural and other land development) into waters and
                      wetlands. (Undetermined)
                 6.   Mining of wetland soils for sand, gravel, peat, and other materials. (Minor)

  Indirect:

                 1.   Sediment diversion by dams, deep channels, and other structures. (Undetermined)

                 2.   Hydrologic alterations by canals, spoil banks, roads, and other structures.
                      (Undetermined)

                 3.   Subsidence due to extraction of groundwater, oil, gas, sulphur, and other
                      minerals. (Major)

                4.   Saltwater intrusion resulting from indirect threats noted above. (Undetermined)
                 5.   Erosion from boat wakes.

                1-0.                   S N:tiin-clud:ing   -n-atURA   THisRE AT l                  i
                 1.  Subsidence (including natural rise of sea level). (Minor)

                 2.   Droughts. (Undetermined)
                3.   Hurricanes and other storms. (Undetermined)
                4.   Erosion. (Moderate)
                 5.  Biotic effects (e.g., muskrat, nutria, grass carp, and goose "eat-outs").
                      (Undetermined)

                          * Relative importance of causes shown in parenthesis.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-16                                   August 1996






converted to upland urban use (oil and gas facilities, residential development, etc.) between the
1950s and 1989. During this same period, approximately 35,600 acres of fresh or palustrine
emergent marshes in the Galveston Bay system were transformed to uplands (White et al., 1993).
Approximately 33 percent of the gross loss in emergent wetlands is attributed to the conversion
of marshes to upland rangeland and cropland. The percentage of loss in the Galveston Bay
system due to agricultural development is lower than the national average, which is estimated at
87 percent from the mid-1950s to mid-1970s, and 54 percent from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s
(White et al., 1993).

       Subsidence is the overriding cause of wetland loss along some river delta marshes, such
as the San Jacinto River. (White and Calnan, 1990). In the Neches River valley, a combination
of factors, including subsidence, relative sea-level rise, fault movement, channel dredging,
dredged material disposal along levees, and impoundment of sediments along streams, has
probably contributed to wetland loss (White and Calnan, 1990).

4. State-Owned Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan and Other Wetland Management Efforts

       Approximately sixty percent of wetlands, seagrasses, and critical areas within the coastal
zone are on public lands. With the passage of S.B. 1054 in 1991, the state adopted a goal of "no
overall net loss" of these areas. The TPWD and GLO are developing a State-Owned Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Plan (SOCWCP) to achieve the immediate goal of no net loss and, in the
long term, a net gain of coastal wetlands. S.B. 1054 limits the SOCWCP to wetlands that
underlie or lie adjacent to tidal waters and that are owned by the state.

       The SOCWCP contains both regulatory and nonregulatory components. The wetland
management components in the SOCWCP include:

 a. Inventories

       The USFWS is using November and December 1992 and February and March 1993 color
infrared aerial photography to update National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (scale 1:24,000)
for coastal Texas. Previous inventories were conducted using 1950s, 1978/1979, and 1989
photography. Wetlands will be delineated and classified according to Cowardin (1979) on 463
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute maps for 21 coastal counties. County atlases will be
produced for each of the 21 counties and will include wetland values and conditions, fish and
wildlife utilizing the wetlands, and lists of wetland plants and hydric soils. In addition, the
USFWS is conducting a National Status and Trends study in coastal Texas. The goal of the
study is to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimates of wetland losses and
gains for the time period between the 1950s and the 1990s.

       The TPWD is also classifying and monitoring wetlands using satellite thematic mapper
imagery and applying the NOAA CoastWatch Change Analysis Program protocol (Thomas and
Ferguson, 1990). In addition, the TPWD is developing guidelines for sensitive wetlands that will
provide the basis for regulations regarding such coastal issues as oil spill prevention and
response, natural resource damage assessment, mitigation, and acquisition. The TPWD is using a
wide range of data--including fisheries, waterfowl, and wetland habitats--to identify and assess
sensitive wetlands. Both the USFWS and TPWD inventories will be used to help determine the
status and trends of wetland resources.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-17                        August 1996






 b. Restoration

       In addition to comprehensive inventories to help monitor wetland status and trends,
inventories of coastal wetland restoration sites within watersheds are also being conducted. The
GLO has identified sites for wetland restoration in the Dickinson Bay/Bayou watershed in the
Houston-Galveston area and is developing restoration plans for the sites. The use of dredged
material to restore and create wetlands in the Galveston Bay system is a key component of the
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels Project, which is the plan for expanding the
commercial waterways of Galveston Bay. Also, the Galveston Bay Plan is promoting the
development of a beneficial use program for dredged material which includes funding
mechanisms to meet the added costs of handling and processing the material and eliminates
nonbeneficial disposal of dredged material. The plan includes a goal of restoring or creating
15,000 acres of wetland in the Galveston Bay area within 10 years (Galveston Bay Plan, April
1995, p. 41).

       Wetland restoration efforts are being expanded to other coastal watersheds, and a number
of coastal wetland restoration projects and plans are underway. For example:

   *   The State Soil and Water Conservation Board is conducting a watershed demonstration
       project in western Fort Bend County that includes interaction with private landowners in
       the development of plans for wetland conservation and restoration. The project is
       focusing on restoring "prior-converted" cropland.

   *   The TPWD is the nonfederal sponsor of a project to restore the Salt Bayou Marsh in
       Jefferson County to historical intermediate salinities. The Corps of Engineers is the
       federal project sponsor. Planning is also underway to restore wetland ecosystems within
       the lower Neches wetlands in Orange County and Mad Island wetlands in Matagorda
       County. Also, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Gulf Coast
       Joint Ventures are currently underway as a cooperative effort among the TPWD and other
       public and private groups.

   *   The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a demonstration project in the Rincon
       Bayou/Nueces River delta marshes. The project is designed to complement the ongoing
       Nueces Estuary Regional Wastewater Planning Study sponsored by the City of Corpus
       Christi, the state, and several local entities. The objective of the project is to provide
       more frequent release of fresh water and accompanying nutrients and sediment, thus
       increasing productivity in the Nueces-Corpus Christi estuary.

   *   The Galveston Bay Foundation is developing a program to restore or enhance
       approximately 15,000 feet of shoreline at several sites in the Clear Lake drainage. The
       program involves industry, government agencies, conservation groups, and hundreds of
       volunteers. By incorporating volunteers, the program additionally provides an
       educational opportunity to increase public awareness of wetland resources and their
       values.

       An important new voluntary program for wetland restoration is the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) administered by the Farm Services Agency of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. For fiscal year 1994, the program was funded at $66.75 million to enroll up to

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-18                      August 1996






           75,000 acres in 20 states, including Texas. Under the WRP, permanent easements are purchased
           from participating owners of fanned wetlands. The program provides for the restoration and
           protection of farmed wetlands that were converted to farmland before December 23, 1985;
           croplands adjacent to eligible wetlands that are deemed necessary as buffer areas to protect the
           functional values of the wetlands being restored; and riparian areas that link eligible wetlands.
           Participating WRP landowners agree to accept no more than fair market value of their land for
           agricultural use in return for a lump-sum payment and cost-share assistance for implementation
           of wetland restoration practices. Specified compatible uses are permitted on the restored acreage
           by the landowner and successors.

            c. Relative Sea-Level Rise and the Sediment Budget

                  In some areas of the coast, such as the Houston-Galveston area, relative sea-level rise has
           had a significant effect on coastal wetlands (White et al., 1993). Relative sea-level rise refers to
           a rise in sea level with respect to the surface of the land, whether it is caused by actual sea-level
           rise or land-surface subsidence. Relative sea-level rise has two components: a lesser component
           of eustatic (global) sea-level rise that is estimated to be about 1.2 min/yr, and a more significant
           component of land-surface subsidence, which varies along the Texas coast from approximately 5
           to 13 mm/yr.

                  Rates of relative sea-level rise are considerably higher than this in areas undergoing
           human-induced subsidence due to the extraction of underground fluids (groundwater and oil and
           gas), such as the Houston-Galveston and Beaumont-Port Arthur areas. Up to 3 mn (IO ft) of
           human-induced subsidence occurred in the Houston-Galveston area between 1906 and 1987
.         ~~~(Gabrysch and Coplin, 1990). Between the 1950s and 1979, more than 1,389 acres of
           bottomland hardwoods and marshes in the lower reaches of the San Jacinto River area were
           displaced by open water (White et al., 1993). The lower reach of the San Jacinto River is near
           the heart of the subsidence bowl in the Houston-Galveston area. Through efforts of the Harris-
           Galveston Coastal Subsidence District to curtail groundwater pumping in the Houston-Galveston
           area, subsidence rates have decreased in some places from a high of 122 mm/yr (0.4 ft/yr) for the
           period of 1964 to 1973 to about 67 mm/yr (0.22 ft/yr) from 1978 to 1987. In the Beaumont-Port
           Arthur area, saltwater intrusion into fresh/intermediate marshes is a result of relative sea level
           rise. Saltwater intrusion results in tidal scouring and loss of vegetated wetlands and organic
           soils.

                  The effects of relative sea-level rise on coastal wetlands have been exacerbated by river
           basin projects such as dams and freshwater impoundments that reduce the volume of sediment
           transported to marshes. If the sediment supply is insufficient, marsh sedimentation rates may not
           keep pace with relative sea-level rise, and the marsh will eventually be replaced by open water.
           In the Trinity River area, rates of estimated relative sea-level rise have outpaced marsh
           sedimentation rates, and vegetated areas are being replaced by open water and barren flats (White
           and Calnan, 1990). Dams and impoundments can reduce flooding and prevent the overbank
           sediment deposition necessary for marsh maintenance. Reduced freshwater inflow and/or
           increased tidal exchange can also allow saltwater intrusion, which can either kill fresh and
           brackish marshes or alter plant community structure.




           Texas Coastal Management Program final EIS   Part 11 6-19                        August 1996






        Sea-level rise may not only alter the geomorphology of coastal habitats, but may also
alter biochemical processes when saltwater submerges marshes and uplands (Zimmerman et al.,
1991). This inundation can change the way marshes function as habitat.

       The CMP defines relative sea-level rise as an adverse effect under the program policies.
Adverse effects on critical areas are to be avoided to the greatest extent practicable, and if they
cannot be avoided, they are to be mitigated. Adverse effects include detrimental alterations that
increase losses of shore areas or other coastal natural resource areas from a rise in sea level with
respect to the surface of the land, whether caused by actual sea-level rise or land surface
subsidence.

       The CMP contains two encouragement policies addressing relative sea-level rise and the
sediment budget.

     * Local governments are encouraged to incorporate sea-level rise (projected for 50 years)
       into the design and the construction of new development.

     * Sediment bypassing is encouraged in the construction and retrofitting of dams on rivers
       that flow into the coastal zone, and at new and existing jetties, groins, and other structures
       that interrupt sediment transport to the coastal sand budget.

       Sediment bypassing systems involve the interception of bedload materials at or above the
heads of reservoirs and the channeling of these materials around lakes to the river bed below the
darns (King, 1990). A draft action plan in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the Galveston Bay estuary calls for "exploring the feasibility of remobilizing sediment
impounded behind watershed dams and transporting this material to the estuary."

 d. Freshwater Inflow

       Texas bays and estuaries provide diverse habitats with salinities ranging from fresh to
brackish in the river deltas and near river and stream mouths to poly- or euryhialine near Gulf
inlets. These diverse conditions favor different vegetation and organisms living in or adjacent to
the estuaries.

       Coastal wetland communities also show well-defined salinity gradients both from north
to south along the coast and within each estuarine system. Freshwater, intermediate, and
brackish-water marshes are most extensive along the upper coast in the Beaumont-Port Arthur
and Houston-Galveston areas, where freshwater inflows are typically much higher than on the
lower coast. Salt marshes are extensive south of the Galveston Bay area. Within each estuarine
system, freshwater and intermediate marshes and bottomnland hardwoods occupy river drainages
and deltas, grading into brackish-water marshes near the estuary. Saltwater marshes are most
common on the bayward side of barrier islands and peninsulas and along the mainland shores of
narrow bays.

       In recognition of the importance of fresh water to the state, including the bay-estuary-
lagoon system, the Texas Legislature directed the TWDB to develop a Texas Water Plan as a
guide to the conservation and development of the state's water resources. The first Texas Water
Plan, adopted in 1969, called for an estimated 2.5 million acre-feet of supplemental freshwater

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 6-20                          August 1996





inflows annually to Texas' bay-estuary-lagoon system. The TWDB regularly updates the plan to
meet current water needs and anticipated future needs. The plan currently emphasizes water
supply, treatment, distribution, and conservation, and the collection and treatment of wastewater.

        In preparation for the Texas Water Plan, the legislature directed the TWDB, in
cooperation with the TNRCC, TPWD, and GLO, to collect comprehensive physical, chemical,
and biological data on the effects of freshwater inflows upon the bay-estuary-lagoon system. The
comprehensive studies and data resulted in a series of reports covering the state's seven major
estuarine systems. The results included preliminary estimates of freshwater inflows needed from
major Texas rivers to meet management alternatives for coastal ecosystems.

       The 69th Texas Legislature assigned the responsibility for water rights permitting to the
Texas Water Commission (now part of the TNRCC) and authorized the TPWD to be a party in
hearings on applications for permits to store, take, or divert water. The legislature directed the
Water Commission to consider effects on the bay-estuary-lagoon system for all water rights
permits. The legislature also directed the TWDB and TPWD to establish and maintain a
continuous data collection and evaluation program and conduct studies and analyses to determine
bay conditions that provide a sound ecological environment. To achieve the goal of a sound
ecological environment in coastal bays, special conditions will be required in state permits to
store, take, or divert water. These conditions will regulate the quantity and timing of water use
and be designed to ensure that salinity and nutrient levels and sediment supplies are adequate
through time to provide an environment for the maintenance of bay-estuary-lagoon wetlands and
organisms.

       The TPWD has a statutory requirement for mitigation, and its policy covers only
relatively large water resource development projects. The Parks and Wildlife Commission seeks
full mitigation for fish and wildlife losses resulting from water resource development projects in
excess of 5,000 acre-ft/yr (TEX. WATER CODE ï¿½ 11.151). Mitigation measures include
improving lands to replace hunter opportunity loss and using fishery management techniques
(PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN. ï¿½57.141). Mitigation can include acquisition and management
of fish and wildlife habitats or specific measures such as improvement of spawning and nursery
habitats. In determining whether to require an applicant to mitigate adverse impacts on a habitat,
the commission may consider any net benefit to the habitat produced by the project.

       The bay-estuary-lagoon system is a valued resource contributing to the welfare and
economy of Texas and to the fish and wildlife that inhabit coastal wetlands and open waters.
High-quality freshwater inflows and accompanying nutrients and sediments delivered in amounts
and seasons similar to historical patterns are important to the maintenance of habitats and fish
and wildlife. The CMP policies in ï¿½501.14(r), Appropriations of Water, will ensure adequate
freshwater inflows to help maintain an ecologically sound environment in bay-estuary-lagoon
systems.

 e. Nonnoint Pollution

       Coastal wetlands are altered by pollutants from upstream and local runoff and, in turn,
change the quality of water flowing out of them. Wetlands are capable of assimilating and
purging pollutants from the water, but amounts of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-21                           August 1996






watersheds that overload a wetland's assimilative ability can drastically alter the biological
makeup of a wetland (Kusler et al., 1994).

        Some discharges into coastal waters are almost immediately toxic to coastal wetlands.
Discharges of oil, for example, can kill coastal wetlands (Webb et al. 1981); less apparent is the
sometimes slow degradation of wetland quality due to urban or agricultural runoff of nonpoint-
source pollutants, including sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding compounds, oil and grease,
and others. Information on the cumulative effects of these pollutants on coastal wetland quality
is limited.

       To help protect wetlands from nonpoint-source pollution, Texas has a nonpoint-source
pollution control program that is incorporated into the CMP. The state program will be closely
coordinated with other existing state and local water quality plans and programs.


f. Acquisition

       A comprehensive strategy for coastal wetland acquisition is being developed. Texas can
protect and manage coastal wetlands through acquisition, but the state's acquisition efforts have
been limited, primarily by a lack of funds for purchase and management of the resources. State
law requires that priorities be set for the acquisition of coastal wetlands. This plan has not yet
been developed to focus on the most important, scarce, and vulnerable coastal wetlands. The
Galveston Bay Plan also recognizes the need to identify and rank wetland habitats for
acquisition. For example; the Plan has a habitat protection objective of placing 50,000 acres of
Galveston Bay area wetlands and floodplains in public ownership over the next 20-years
(Galveston Bay Plan, April 1995, p. 42). Texas should have a strong coastal wetlands
acquisition program to complement federal acquisition efforts.

       Two state statutes provide authority for wetland acquisition. The Texas Waterfowl
Stamp Act empowers the TPWD to acquire, lease, or develop waterfowl habitat in the state. The
funds for such activities are to come from the sale of state waterfowl stamps. Since 1981, the
TPWD has used revenues from the sale of Texas duck stamps and art prints to buy, lease, and
develop waterfowl habitats. In FY 1992, the agency spent about $1.5 million for wetland
acquisition (Fiscal Notes, 1993).

       The Coastal Wetland Acquisition Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. Chapter 33,
Subchapter G) designates the TPWD as the "acquiring agency" for coastal wetlands. The GLO's
role is to work with the TPWD in certifying coastal wetlands most essential to the public interest
and assigning priorities for their acquisition. The GLO, with funding from the EPA Wetlands
Program State Development Grants and assistance from the TPWD, is developing a Coastal
Wetlands Priority Acquisition Plan that will: (1) create the framework, criteria, and guidance for
identifying coastal wetlands on a regional or watershed basis for acquisition; (2) identify areas
and/or acreages of coastal wetlands by region or watershed for acquisition; and (3) identify
possible funding sources.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-22                          August 1996






g. Education

       Education is vital in building public support for wetlands protection. To increase public
awareness of and appreciation for the state's wetland resources, the GLO, in cooperation with
other state and federal agencies and private organizations, has developed a wetland outreach
strategy as part of the SOCWCP's outreach education program. The GLO is producing public
outreach materials on (1) wetland functions and values; (2) wetland status and trends; (3)
regulatory methods to protect wetlands, including the SOCWCP, the CMP, and the state and
federal regulatory process; and (4) nonregulatory methods to protect, restore, and enhance
wetlands. In 1992, the GLO hosted wetland workshops focusing primarily on current wetland
regulation. The GLO will hold additional public workshops on coastal wetlands with guest
speakers from both regulatory and nonregulatory organizations. The focus of the workshops will
be the importance of wetlands and the role of the CMP in protecting them.

       The Outreach and State Programs Section of the Wetlands Strategies and State Programs
Branch in EPA's Wetlands Division initiated celebration of American Wetlands Month each
May to increase the public's awareness of wetlands and to encourage people to become more
involved in wetland protection efforts nationally as well as locally. May has been officially
proclaimed Wetlands Month in Texas since 1992. The annual May issue of the Texas CMP
Newsletter has been dedicated to coastal wetlands.

       The TPWD and GLO have produced a brochure, "Boating and Seagrasses," containing
information about the functions, values, status, and trends of seagrasses; boating techniques to
protect seagrasses; general boating safety practices; and seagrass species, with drawings to help
with identification. This educational brochure is intended to help protect seagrasses from
damage from boaters operating in shallow bay-estuary-lagoon systems.


 h. Local Government Particination

       Local governments play a critical role in wetlands protection. Most of the decisions
affecting development are made at the local level, and local governments are often best equipped
to address local wetland resource protection concerns. Several local governments along the
Texas coast are pursuing the development of multi-objective wetland management plans. These
local governments are seeking guidance to ensure that their plans are consistent with the state's
wetland protection initiatives. In response to this need, the GLO secured a grant from the EPA
Wetlands Program for FY '95 to develop a model coastal wetlands protection plan for local
governments.

       The Model Coastal Wetlands Protection Plan is intended for the leaders and citizens of
coastal communities who are concerned about balancing development with wetland resource
protection. The purpose of the plan is to familiarize local leaders with existing wetland
protection mechanisms, offer new and innovative approaches for local wetland protection, and
provide guidance for selecting and implementing management strategies which not only meet the
community's objectives for wetland protection, but are consistent with the state's no net loss goal.

       Incentives for wetland protection by private landowners are also needed, since many
wetlands on the Texas coast are privately owned. A program of public-private partnerships will

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   PartII 6-23                          August 1996






facilitate conservation by private landowners. The state must identify the needs of the
landowners, inform them of existing incentive programs at the local, state, and federal levels, and
impress upon them the value of preserving and restoring wetland habitats. This program can be a
critical component of any program developed to slow or stop the loss of inland wetlands.


 i. Coordination of Enforceable State Policies and Authorities

       State agencies having responsibilities for coastal wetlands include the TNRCC, TPWD,
RRC, and GLO. Their enforceable policies and authorities are described in Chapter Four.
Because the primary wetlands management program is that administered by the Corps of
Engineers, most interagency coordination takes place through the Corps permit issuance process.
Interagency coordination in the Corps process begins with the bimonthly joint evaluation
meetings at the Corps' District Office in Galveston, Texas. The evaluation meetings are an
opportunity for both state and federal agency staff to evaluate and comment on projects affecting
wetlands in the Corps' Galveston District. The agencies may schedule on-site field inspections
with applicants, and, if necessary, determine mitigation requirements.

       The Corps, EPA, and U.S. Coast Guard have elected to participate with the TNRCC in a
joint public notice procedure to inform the public of both the request for the federal permit and
the concurrent review by the TNRCC for the purpose of providing ï¿½401 water-quality
certification. The RRC issues ï¿½401 water quality certification for ï¿½404 permits related to oil and
gas activities and has negotiated the form of a joint notice with the EPA and the Corps. These
processes are described in more detail in Chapter Four.

       The TPWD has primary responsibility for protecting the state's fish and wildlife
resources. It comments on ï¿½ 10/404 permit applications submitted to the Corps and may provide
comments to the TNRCC for use in evaluating ï¿½401 water-quality certification requests. If the
TPWD staff determines that a wetland area has unique aesthetic or ecological qualities, dredged
material disposal techniques that would adversely affect the area will be opposed and alternate
sites recommended. Where the TPWVD staff determines that detrimental environmental effects
can be minimized, the implementation of disposal techniques that result in minimization will be
recommended. Ecological need is a major determining factor in decision-making.

       The GLO is the state agency responsible for the management of state-owned lands. The
agency is proprietary, not regulatory. The GLO's constitutional and statutory missions are both
to conserve the natural resources on state lands and to generate revenue by collecting fees for the
use of that land lands. State-owned lands extend from mean high tide in bays and lagoons to
three marine leagues (10.36 miles) offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Activities covered by state
easements or leases include floating piers, wharves, docks, jetties, groins, breakwaters, artificial
reefs, fences, posts, retaining walls, levees, ramps, cabins, shelters, landfills, excavations, canals,
channels, and roads.

       The GLO routinely participates in the bimonthly Corps joint-agency evaluation meetings
to identify proposed activities that may involve the use of state-owned lands. The GLO obtains
copies of the Corps permit applications that appear to include state-owned land and submits them
to the GLO surveying division for a formal determination of state ownership. If it is determined
that state-owned lands are involved, the GLO sends the Corps permit applicant an "Application

Texas Coastal Management Program Fintal EIS   Part 1I 6-24                         August 1996






           Packet." This informs the applicant that a state instrument is required for the use of state-owned
           land in connection with the proposed project. The applicant sends the completed application
             wihthe requested information to the appropriate GLO field office, which reviews the application
is f~~or accuracy and completeness and notifies the applicant of any additional requirements. GLO
           coastal field inspectors conduct an on-site investigation of the proposed project, either
           independently or, more commonly, in conjunction with the other state and federal agencies that
           take part in the Corps process.

                  The field report is basically an "environmental assessment" of the proposed project that
           describes any impacts the project could have on state-owned lands. The report provides
           recommendations on fee assessments, mitigation, and/or project modification. Any project
           alterations, relocation, or mitigation requirements requested are thoroughly coordinated with the
           applicant and other state and federal agencies to ensure consistency.

                  An Interagency Quality Management Board (QMB) is currently coordinating an effort by
           the Corps' Galveston District to improve the Corps permitting processes. The QMB is reviewing
           the current regulatory system, including the agency input/decision-making process, regulatory
           overlaps and conflicts, the applicant orientation process, the field review process, agency
           commitment of resources, compliance monitoring and enforcement, endangered species
           monitoring, and CMIP consistency. The goal of the QMB is to assure resource protection and
           public service by improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and predictability of the Corps
           regulatory processes and associated federal/state processes within the Galveston District.


            j. The TCMP: Improvin~y Coordination Through Uniform Policies and Consistency Review
               Process_

                  Activities affecting coastal wetlands are regulated by overlapping and fragmented
           policies, goals, and authorities of federal and state agencies, which can reduce the effectiveness
           of wetland management. The purpose of the CMP is to create a higher level of coordination
           among the component programs. That coordination level will be achieved through the state and
           federal consistency review processes and oversight of the program by the Council.

                  The state consistency review process (Part 11, Chapter Five, Ensuring Compliance with
           Program Policies) will provide a formalized method for reviewing al proposed state agency and
           subdivision actions that may adversely affect coastal wetlands and for determining if those
          proposed actions are consistent with the goals and policies of the CMP (Part H1, Chapter Four,
           Program Goals and Policies). The federal consistency review process (Part II, Chapter Five,
           Ensuring Compliance with Program Polcies) will provide an additional level of state/federal
           coordination for proposed federal agency decisions, such as planning federal development
          projects, issuing federal licenses or permits such as the Corps ï¿½ 1 0/404 permit, granting federal
          financial assistance to local governments, and any approving plans for exploration or
          development of, or production from, any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
          Act.





          Texas Coastal Management Progrmn Final EIS   Part 11 6-25                          August 1996






  k. Lone-Rance Navioational Dredeina and Dredeed-Material Disnosal Plan

       Dredging and dredged-material disposal can be detrimental to coastal wetlands and fish
and wildlife. In the Galveston Bay system, conversion of emergent coastal wetlands occurred in
several areas in conjunction with dredging and filling to create navigation channels and upland
sites for residential development (White et al., 1993). White et al. (1993) reported that wetland
losses due to dredging of channels and wetland filling in the Virginia Point USGS quadrangle
totaled approximately 2,000 acres between the 1950s and 1989.

       The SOCWCP will include a comprehensive, long-term management strategy for
dredging and disposal and placement of dredged materials that is environmentally, technically,
and economically sound. This plan will be developed through consistency review of federal
maintenance dredging of commercial waterways.








































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-26                         August 1996






           E. Areas for Preservation or Restoration

                   Section 923.22 of the U.S. Department of Commerce regulations on Coastal Zone
is ~~Management require coastal management programs to include procedures whereby specific areas
           may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation,
           recreational, ecological, historical or aesthetic values.

                   In Texas, there are procedures for designating areas for preservation or restoration
           (APRs) as wildlife management areas, scientific areas, state parks, state recreation areas, state
           historical areas (i.e., state historical parks, state historical sites, and state historic structures), state
           natural areas, state fishing piers, state natural landmarks, critical erosion areas, coastal wetlands,
           and preserves, educational and scientific areas, and wildlife refuges on coastal public lands.

           1. Texas Parks & Wildlife Deinartment

                   The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has the greatest authority for
           designating areas for preservation or restoration. The TPW;D's designations are intended to
           provide areas for outdoor recreation, natural area preservation, and historic preservation.

             a. State Parks

                   State parks are defined in 31 TAC ï¿½59.63 as spacious areas of outstanding natural or
           scenic character, often containing historical, archeological, ecological or geological values,
           selectively developed to provide opportunities for compatible types of resource-oriented
           recreation. State parks generally include a minimum of 1,000 acres. Before approving a park
               matrdevelopment plan, the T`PW1D is required to hold a public hearing to receive comments on
           the plan in an area near the location of the new park site.

             b. State Recreation Areas

                   State Recreation Areas are areas in a relatively natural state having the best available
           scenic and recreational qualities. These areas are usually associated with water resources and
           developed to provide a variety of resource-oriented, unstructured, outdoor recreation
           opportunities serving regional or statewide needs. A State Recreation Area normally includes a
           minimum of 50 acres of land within its boundaries, but may include less in the case of an
           extraordinary recreation resource of statewide significance. State Recreation Areas are selected
           on a priority basis to best meet the outdoor recreation demands of the state in conformity with the
           Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan.

            c. State Natural Areas

                  State Natural Areas are areas retaining to a major degree their unique or natural character
           established primarily for the perpetual preservation of outstanding ecological, biological,
           geological, or scenic features of statewide significance, which may be used in a manner
           consistent with their continued preservation for the public purposes of scientific research,
           education, aesthetic enjoyment, and dispersed primitive recreation. State Natural Areas are
           selected on a priority basis determined by statewide significance, natural condition, and the
           degree to which the resource is endangered by misuse or outside encroachment. Unique areas

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 6-27                           August 1996





currently unrepresented in the public domain receive a higher priority than areas that duplicate
the primary significance of a site presently preserved in public ownership.

  d. State Fishing Piers

        State Fishing Piers are established along the Texas Gulf Coast and in Texas bays to
provide regional recreational fishing opportunities. Usually, these structures lack sufficient land
base to support extensive recreational development. State Fishing Piers are often selected to take
advantage of existing structures, such as abandoned causeways and are established as
opportunities arise.

  e. State Natural Landmarks

        State Natural Landmarks are features of outstanding scenic, ecological, geological, or
physiographical significance which possess physical integrity and have a recognized value in
illustrating or interpreting the natural heritage of the state. State Natural Landmarks may be
publicly or privately owned, but reasonable assurance of future protection of the feature must be
obtained. Natural landmarks will be acquired by TPWI) only when they may be operated as a
subunit of an existing state park.

  f. Wildlife Management Areas

        TPWI) is authorized to acquire, develop, maintain, and operate wildlife management
areas. The Department may manage, along sound biological lines, wildlife and fish found on any
land the department has or may acquire as a wildlife management area. The department is
allowed to regulate hunting, fishing, and recreational activities in wildlife management areas.

  g. Scientific Areas

        TPWD is authorized to promote and establish a state system of scientific areas for the
purposes of education, scientific research, and preservation of flora and fauna of scientific or
educational value.

2. Texas Historical Commission

       The Texas Historical Commission has responsibility for locating, protecting, and
preserving al sites, objects, buildings, pre-twentieth century shipwrecks, and locations of
historical, archeological, educational, or scientific interest in any way related to the inhabitants,
pre-history, history, natural history, government, or culture, in, on, or under any of the land in the
State of Texas, including the tidelands, submerged land, and the bed of the sea within the
jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

 a. State Historical Areas

       State historical areas are al parks, sites, and structures established for the preservation
and interpretation of prehistoric and historic resources of particular statewide or national
significance. State Historical Areas include state historical parks, state historic sites, and state
historic structures.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 6-28                            August 1996






               ï¿½   State historical parks are areas established primarily to preserve and interpret sites,
                   events, persons or objects and which are of sufficient size to completely include the
  Is ~~~~~historic features yet permit development of substantial recreational facilities.

               ï¿½   State historic sites are areas, usually limited in size, established to preserve and interpret
                   sites, events, persons, or objects.

               *   State historic structures are areas established to preserve structures embodying the
                   distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type, which is inherently valuable for the
                   study of a period, style, or method of construction.

                   To be considered for acquisition, historic sites and structures must evidence a significant
           association with the broad history of the state. TPWT) will recommend for acquisition historic
           sites which will complement a balanced interpretation of the heritage of Texas. State Historical
           Areas are organized chronologically, such as Paleo-Indian Texas (prior to 7000 B.C.), Early
           Exploration and Colonization (1528-1800), Victorian Texas (1875-1901) and thematically (e.g.,
           architecture, arts, ethnic culture, and political affairs).

            b. State Archeoloeical Landmarks

                   Sunken or abandoned pre-twentieth century ships and wrecks of the sea, and any part or
           the contents of them, and all treasure imbedded in the earth, located in, on, or under the surface
           of land belonging to the State of Texas, including its tidelands, submerged land, and the beds of
           its rivers and the Gulf of Mexico within state jurisdiction are declared by state law to be State
O         ~~~Archeological Landmarks and are eligible for designation.

                   Sites, objects, buildings, artifacts, implements, and locations of historical, archeological,
           scientific, or educational interest, as well as archeological sites of every character that are located
           in, on, or under the surface of any lands belonging to the state or to any county, city, or political
           subdivision of the state are State Archeological Landmarks and are eligible for designation. To
           be designated a State Archeological Landmark, a structure or building must be listed on the
           National Register of Historic Places.


           3. General Land Office and Texas Parks and Wildlife Denartnment

                  The General Land Office and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department share a role in
           two initiatives to designate areas for preservation and restoration. Under ï¿½33.105, TEX. NAT.
           RES. CODE ANN., the state-owned submerged lands underlying the bays and estuaries of the
           coastal zone, known as coastal public land, may be leased to TPWD for estuarine preserves.
           Chapter 14, TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE ANN., directs the GLO and TPWD to develop the
           State-Owned Wetland Conservation Plan.

            a. Coastal Preserves

                  The GLO has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the TPWD for the
           creation and management of a coastal preserve system. The coastal preserve system protects
           unique coastal areas and fragile biological communities, including important colonial bird

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-29                           August 1996






nesting sites. The MOA allows the GLO and TPWD to hold public meetings near suggested
preserve sites for open discussion of coastal preserve goals and management activities and to
receive public commient. The informnation acquired at such meetings is synthesized, and
proposed sites and management activities are presented to the School Land Board and Parks and
Wildlife Commission for their consideration as coastal preserve leases.

 b. Coastal Wetlands

       The State-Owned Wetland Conservation Plan calls for the development of a plan to
inventory sites for potential compensatory mitigation, enhancement, restoration, and acquisition
to meet the goal of "no net loss" of state-owned coastal wetlands. The plan will include
processes and criteria for designating these sites. The Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Act
provides that the GLO will certify coastal wetlands "most essential to the public interest" and
assign priorities for their acquisition. The act directs TPWD, the designated acquiring agency, to
accept grants, gifts, or devises of land; to acquire fee and lesser interests in coastal wetlands by
purchase or condemnation; and to manage acquired interests "in a manner that will preserve and
protect the productivity and integrity of the land as coastal wetland."

       The Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Plan establishes a Coastal Wetland Rating system for
Acquisition that includes consideration of the following criteria: vegetation communities;
overall quality; threat of destruction/degradation; proximity/contiguity; functions and values of
wildlife/aquatic habitat; public use; hunting/fishing potential; floodflow/stormwater alteration;
water quality protection; and shoreline protection.

       The GLO is also developing a framework for identifying coastal wetlands suitable for
restoration activities. Restoration is defined by EPA as the "process of returning a significantly
disturbed or totally altered site to its previously existing functional condition by some action of
man (e.g., prior converted cropland or fanned wetlands reestablished as bottomland hardwood
forested wetlands)." Identifying such coastal wetlands will involve the use of GIS and status and
trends analysis.

4. Texas General Land Office

       The GLO manages coastal public lands. The GLO is also the lead state agency for
responding to coastal erosion.

 a. Refu~yes and Scientific Areas

       Section 33.105, TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN., authorizes coastal public lands to be
leased to nonprofit environmental organizations for wildlife refuges, or to scientific or
educational organizations or institutions for conducting scientific research.

 b. Critical Erosion Areas

       The GLO is mandated by law to develop a coastwide erosion response plan. As part of
the plan, the GLO is proposing the designation of Critical Erosion Areas. The GLO's rules for
management of the beach/dune system (31 TAC ï¿½ï¿½ 15.l-15. 10) define "eroding areas" as "a
portion of the shoreline which is experiencing a historical erosion rate of greater than two ft/yr

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 6-30                           August 1996






based on published data of the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology."
An eroding area is proposed to be considered critical when the rate of erosion exceeds two ft/yr
and poses a threat to:

   ï¿½ public infrastructure or areas of national importance,
   * public beach access and recreation,
   *   traffic safety,
   ï¿½ private property, or
   ï¿½ habitat.

       To rank critical erosion areas in a reasonably quantifiable manner, the following factors
and ratings are proposed to be considered (HIGH = 3 pts., MED = 2 pts., LOW = 1 pt.). Areas
with higher point totals should receive higher priority for funding.

   1. Evacuation routes and public safety

       HIGH -         Evacuation routes are closed due to shoreline erosion, and beach travel is
                      closed.
       MED  -         Evacuation routes are open, or reasonably safe beach travel is threatened.
       LOW  -         Evacuation routes are open, and beach travel is open.

   2. Public access and recreation

       HIGH -         Public access and use is halted due to erosion.
       MED  -         Public access and use is threatened.
       LOW  -         Public access and use is not affected.

   3. Federal/state/local economic impact

       HIGH -         Erosion is the main reason for a decrease in annual tourist dollars and in
                      the tax base.
       MED  -         Erosion is partly the reason for decreased revenues.
       LOW  -         Erosion is not a reason for decreased revenues.

   4. Public/private property value

       HIGH -         The total value of threatened property exceeds $100,000, or habitable
                      structures are in imminent danger of collapse due to erosion.
       MED  -        The total value of threatened property is equal to or less than $100,000,
                      and/or structures are located within the eroding area boundary.
       LOW  -         Property values have not decreased, and/or the structures are located
                      landward of the eroding area boundary.

   5. Existing shoreline protection (restored, natural, vs. armored)
       HIGH -         The shoreline is in its natural state, and no shore protection program has
                      been implemented.
       MED  -        The shoreline has been restored by beach nourishment.
       LOW  -        The shoreline is armored.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-31                           August 1996






   6. Historical erosion rate

        HIGH -         Greater than five ft/yr.
        MED  -         Greater than two feet and less than five ft/yr.
        LOW  -         Stable or accreting.

   7. Loss of wildlife areas/endangered species

       HIGH -         Wildlife and endangered species habitat is being lost due to erosion.
       MED  -         Wildlife and endangered species habitat is imminently threatened.
       LOW  -         No habitat is threatened.

   8. Human impacts

       HIGH -         Erosion is mainly attributed to human impacts (for example, coastal
                      structures or shipping).
       MED  -         Erosion is attributed to a mixture of human impacts and natural processes.
       LOW  -         Erosion is mainly attributed to natural processes.

       Once the critical erosion areas have been ranked according to their criticality, the next
step is to consider the type of erosion response project that may be planned. Should a
competitive funding source become available at some point in the future, proposed erosion
response projects should be ranked on a benefit-to-cost ratio on the basis of the following
benefits:

       Preserves coastal sand dunes
       Provides storm protection
       Protects navigation
       Provides recreation
       Provides potential tourism income
       Protects the tax base
       Benefits downdrift shorelines



















Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 6-32                            August 1996






F. Plan Coordination

       Section 923.56 of the NOAA program approval regulations requires the state to
coordinate the contents of its coastal management program with local, areawide, and interstate
plans. The purpose of the coordination requirement is to identify any "conflicts with those plans
of a regulatory nature" and the means to resolve those conflicts.

       The regulations require the state to identify the plans and entities that will be the subject
of this coordination. The first list below identifies known plans and the entities the GLO has
contacted concerning coordination with the CMP. The second list identifies entities whose
jurisdiction is regional which are included in CMP coordination efforts.

1. Identified Plans

       The following Plans were identified for cooridnation:

   a.  Waste treatment facility or management plans under ï¿½ï¿½201 and 208 of the Clean Water
       Act* - TNRCC

   b.  Local floodplain management plans under the National Flood Insurance Program* -
       FEMA

   c.  Regional and interstate highway plans* - TxDOT

   d.  Fishery management plans under the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act* -
       TPWD and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

   e. National Estuary Program CCMPs - TNRCC

   f.  Regional solid waste management plans - TNRCC

   g.  Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan - TPWD

   h.  Texas Water Plan/Trans-Texas Water Plan - TNRCC/TWDB

   i.  Local government beach access/dune protection plans - GLO/AG

  j.  Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans (SIPs) - TNRCC

   k.  Plans under ï¿½319 of the Clean Water Act - TNRCC, TSSWCB

   1.  Outer Continental Shelf Development Plans -- Department of the Interior, Minerals
       Management Service

       Cited in NOAA regulations as a minimum requirement.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 6-33                        August 1996






2. Other Aaencies Contacted

  a.   Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District

  b.   Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority

  C.   Harris County Flood Control District

  d.   All regional councils and councils of government in the coastal zone.

       For the most part, coordination between the CUT and local, areawide, and interstate plans
has been accomplished through the interagency and intergovernmental groups and processes
created for development of the CMP. Most of the entities identified above were represented on
the local government focus group, the Federal Agency Task Force, or the State Agency Task
Force. Therefore, discussion of any conflicts between the CMP and local, areawide, or interstate
plans has occurred during discussions of the CUTP consistency process and the CMP goals and
policies in meetings of those groups. There are no known conflicts between these plans and the
CMP which have not been resolved.



































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 6-34                         August 1996







                                     CHAPTER SEVEN.
       CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND ACTIVITIES OF
                                   REGIONAL BENEFIT

A. Consideration of the National Interest

       Section 306(d)(8) of the CZMA and 15 CFR ï¿½923.52 of the coastal zone management
development and approval regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 61, March 28, 1979)
require that states give adequate consideration to the national interest in planning for and
managing the coastal zone, including the siting of facilities which are of greater than local
significance. Section 307(b) of the CZMA requires that the views of federal agencies principally
affected by a state's coastal management program be adequately considered.

       These requirements establish a reciprocal state-federal relationship in which the state, by
providing relevant federal agencies with the opportunity for fuill participation and by giving full
consideration to their interests in the Texas coast during program development (see Part II,
Chapter Eight, Public Participation and Federal Agency Consultation), can administer the federal
consistency provisions of ï¿½ ï¿½307(c) and (d) of the CZMA once the TCMvP is approved (see Part
II, Chapter Five, Ensuring Compliance with Program Policies). In order to meet these
requirements, the TCMP must:

    * describe the national interest in the planning for and siting of facilities considered during
       program development;

  0    identify the sources relied upon for a description of the national interest;

  *    identify how and where the consideration of the national interest is reflected in the
       TCMP; and

  9    describe the process for continued consideration of the national interest in the plnin
       for and siting of facilities during program implementation.

       Recognizing the distinct and irreplaceable nature of the nation's coast, the United States
Congress found in Section 302 of the CZMA:

     *There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and
       development of the coastal zone.

     * The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological,
       industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and
       future well-being of the nation.

       Thus, the primary focus for the consideration of the national interest under the federal
Coastal Zone Management Program is the balance between providing for facilities and activities
which are in the national interest and protecting coastal resources, which are also in the national
interest.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 1I 7-1                           August 1996







1. Identification of Facilities of National Interest

       The facilities of national interest were identified by reviewing federal and state laws and
regulations, federal agency policy statements and strategic goals, and comments from the TCMP
Federal Agency Task Force (FATF), the TCMP State Agency Task Force, and TCMP focus
groups. In addition, statements of national interest were solicited from the heads of federal
agencies, as required by 15 CFR ï¿½923.51(d)(3). A summary of the statements received is
provided in this chapter. In addition to certain facilities of national interest, various coastal
natural resources were identified by federal agencies or in federal laws as being of national
interest.

       Therefore, the following coastal facilities, activities, and resources are considered by
Texas to be of national interest:

           *  National defense and aerospace facilities and activities
           *  Energy exploration, production, and transmission facilities and associated
               activities
           *  Transportation facilities and activities
           *  Water resources development facilities and activities
           *  Water, air, and land pollution control facilities and activities
           *  Natural and technological hazard control activities
           *  Recreational facilities and activities
           *  Coastal natural resources
               - wetlands
               - fish and wildlife species and habitats
               - threatened and endangered species and habitats
               - cultural, historical, and archeological areas
               - natural hazard areas
               - barrier islands

2. Manaaement of Facilities of National Interest

       In accordance with the TCMP rules, any conflict between national interests in the coastal
zone will be resolved through the TCMP policies and through the rules and regulations of the
agencies responsible for implementing the TCMP policies for specific activities or resources. In
addition, the federal consistency review process includes procedures for mediation of conflicts
between competing national interests.

       The national interest will be considered during program implementation through the
authorities of the state agencies and the oversight authority of the Council. The TCMP policy for
consideration of the national interest requires that state agencies and political subdivisions
include such consideration when undertaking or authorizing an activity that may adversely affect
CNRAs (see 31 TAC ï¿½501.13(4)). Agencies, in reviewing applications, will consider the
national interest as reflected in the regulations and policies. Agencies will also consider
comments concerning the national interest from the public and the appropriate federal agencies
when making a decision on a permit application.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11 7-2                           August 1996







3. How the National Interest Is Addressed bv the TCMP

  a. Defense and Aerospace Facilities and Activities

       Many of the goals and policies of the TCMP apply to national defense and aerospace
facilities and activities if they are not on federal land (excluded from the program) or if they are
on federal land and adversely affect CNRAs. The TCMP recognizes that national security
requirements and capabilities may, in the future, require new or expanded defense facilities. The
TCMP will not seek to question the national security justification, but will strive to ensure that
facilities and activities are consistent with the TCMP goals and policies without impairing the
mission of national security. When necessary, federal consistency mediation procedures will be
sought in accordance with 15 CFR ï¿½923.54.

       TCMP policies found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to Policies for Specific Activities and
Coastal Natural Resources) which may address national defense and aerospace facilities are those
for: (1) construction and operation of solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (2)
development in critical areas; (3) construction of waterfront facilities and other structures on
submerged lands; (4) construction in the beach/dune system; (4) development in special hazard
areas; (5) development on coastal barriers; (6) alteration of coastal historic areas; (7)
transportation projects; and (8) dredging and dredged material disposal and placement.

  b. Enerev Exnloration and Production and Transmission Facilities and Activities

       The energy facilities and activities considered to be in the national interest are those
defined in 15 CFR ï¿½923.52(c) of the CZMA regulations. They include electric generating
facilities; oil sand gas facilities, pipelines, and transmission facilities; gasification plants;
petroleum refineries and associated facilities; petroleum transfer facilities, including deepwater
ports; and nuclear fuel processing facilities. TCMP policies found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating
to Policies for Specific Activities and Coastal Natural Resources) that may address energy
exploration, production, and transmission activities include those for: (1) construction of electric
generating and transmission facilities; (2) construction, operation, and maintenance of oil and gas
exploration and production facilities; (3) discharge of wastewater and disposal of waste from oil
and gas exploration and production activities; (4) construction and operation of solid waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (5) oil spill prevention, response, and remediation; (6)
discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater to coastal waters; (7) development in critical
areas; (8) construction of waterfront facilities and other structures on submerged lands; (9)
construction in the beach/dune system; (10) development in special hazard areas; (11)
development on coastal barriers; (12) development in coastal parks; (13) alteration of coastal
historic areas; (14) transportation projects; (15) appropriations of water; and (16) dredging and
dredged material disposal and placement.

       In addition, the Energy Facility Siting Process (Part II, Chapter Six) provides a
comprehensive discussion of the regulatory authority, policies, and planning process for facilities
and activities associated with energy production and transmission.




Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-3                             August 1996







c. Transnortation Facilities and Activities

        Transportation has been identified as in the national interest for purposes of national
defense, economic development, and recreation. Transportation facilities and activities of
national interest include interstate highways, railroads, airports, navigation channels (particularly
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway), bridges, ports (including deepwater ports), commercial
shipping, and recreational boating. TCMP policies found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to
Policies for Specific Activities and Coastal Natural Resources) that may address transportation
facilities and activities are those for: (1) prevention, response, and remediation of oil spills; (2)
nonpoint-source water pollution; (3) development in critical areas; (4) construction of waterfront
facilities and other structures on submerged lands; (5) construction in the beach/dune system; (6)
development in special hazard areas; (7) development on coastal barriers; (8) development in
coastal parks; (9) alteration of coastal historic areas; (10) transportation projects; and (11)
dredging and dredged material disposal and placement.

 d. Water Resources Development Facilities and Activities

        Water resources development facilities and activities identified to be of national interest
include reservoirs and dams, dikes, levees, and flood and erosion control structures. The
following policies, found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to Policies for Specific Activities and
Coastal Natural Resources), may address water resources development activities which are in the
national interest: (1) development in critical areas; (2) construction of waterfront facilities and
other structures on submerged lands; (3) development in coastal hazard areas; (4) development
on coastal barriers; (5) alteration of coastal historic areas; (6) appropriations of water; (7) levee
and flood control projects; (8) dredging and dredged material disposal and placement; and (9)
nonpoint-source water pollution.

 e. Water. Air. and Land Pollution Control Facilities and Activities

       Water, air, and land pollution control is a key element of the TCMP and may be
addressed in the following TCMP policies, found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to Policies for
Specific Activities and Coastal Natural Resources): (1) construction of electric generating and
transmission facilities; (2) construction, operation, and maintenance of oil and gas exploration
and production facilities; (3) discharge of wastewater and disposal of waste from oil and gas
exploration and production activities; (4) construction and operation of solid waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; (5) prevention, response, and remediation of oil spills; (6)
discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater to coastal waters; (7) nonpoint-source water
pollution; (8) development in critical areas; (9) construction of waterfront facilities and other
structures on submerged lands; (10) development on coastal barriers; (11) transportation projects;
(12) emission of air pollutants; (13) appropriations of water; and (14) dredging and dredged
material disposal and placement.

 f. Manaaement of Natural and Technological Hazards

       The management of natural and technological hazards was identified by several federal
agencies as being of national interest. In addition, the need to manage coastal hazards under the
TCMP is given emphasis through the designation of special hazard areas, critical dune areas,

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-4                            August 1996







critical erosion areas, coastal barriers, Gulf beaches, and coastal shore areas as CNRAs. TCMP
policies found in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to Policies for Specific Activities and Coastal
Natural Resources) that may be relevant to this issue of national interest include: (1) construction
of electric generating and transmission facilities; (2) construction, operation, and maintenance of
oil and gas exploration and production facilities; (3) discharge of wastewater and disposal of
waste from oil and gas exploration and production activities; (4) construction and operation of
solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (5) prevention, response, and remediation
of oil spills; (6) discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater to coastal waters; (7)
development in critical areas; (8) construction of waterfront facilities and other structures on
submerged lands; (9) construction in the beach/dune system; (10) development in special hazard
areas; (11) development on coastal barriers; (12) transportation projects; and (13) dredging and
dredged material disposal and placement.

 g. Recreational Facilities and Activities

       In addition to specific TCMP policies that promote and protect recreational opportunities
on the coast, recreational areas are given special emphasis through the designation of the
following CNRAs: Gulf beaches; coastal historic areas; coastal parks; coastal wetlands; oyster
reefs; hard substrate reefs; submerged lands; submerged aquatic vegetation; tidal sand and mud
flats; waters of the open Gulf of Mexico; and waters under tidal influence. TCMP policies found
in 31 TAC ï¿½501.14 (relating to Policies for Specific Activities and Coastal Natural Resources)
that may address the protection or promotion of recreational opportunities include: (1)
construction of electric generating and transmission facilities; (2) construction, operation, and
maintenance of oil and gas exploration and production facilities; (3) discharge of wastewater and
disposal of waste from oil and gas exploration and production activities; (4) construction and
operation of solid waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; (5) prevention, response, and
remediation of oil spills; (6) discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater to coastal waters;
(7) development in critical areas; (8) construction of waterfront facilities and other structures on
submerged lands; (9) construction in the beach/dune system; (11) development on coastal
barriers; (12) development in coastal parks; ( 13) alteration of coastal historic areas; (14)
transportation projects; (15) appropriations of water; and (16) dredging and dredged material
disposal and placement.

 h. Coastal Natural Resources

       Federal agencies identified wetlands; fish and wildlife species and their habitats;
threatened and endangered species and their habitats; cultural, historical, and archaeological
sites; coastal natural hazard areas; and barrier islands as resources of national interest. Most of
these resources are defined as CNRAS and, as such, are afforded a more refined management
status under the TCMP.

       Living resources, except for oyster reefs, are not expressly listed as CNRAs; however, the
important habitats that support living resources are specifically managed through the TCMP
policies and implementing agencies' regulations. Several individual policies also address special
concerns for living resources. For example, 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(h), Development in Critical Areas;
31 TAC ï¿½501.14(i), Construction of Waterfront Facilities and Other Structures on Submerged
Lands; and 31 TAC ï¿½501.14(r), Appropriations of Water, address protection of the productivity,

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-5                             August 1996







diversity, and life cycles of coastal living resources. Texas' recognition of the national interest in
fisheries is also reflected in the state's participation on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, established by the federal Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. To
avoid conflicts between national and state interests, the TPWD is authorized to issue additional
regulations that might be needed to comply with this act.

4. Summary of National Interest Statements Received from Federal Aflencies

 a. U.S. Dernartment of Ainiculture (USDA)

       The Natural Resources Conservation Service maintains that the U.S. Department
Agriculture has a national interest in water resources development, encompassing such activities
as flood control, erosion control, the construction of dams, dikes, levees, etc., and wetlands.


 b. U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC)

       (1) Economic Development Administration (FDA): The EDA furthers the national
       interest in the planning for and the siting of facilities through the discretionary award of
       assistance for local projects which are consistent with overall local planning to enhance
       economic development, and upon which there is the opportunity for state and
       metropolitan area review and comment.

       (2) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): The mission of NMFS is stewardship
       of the nation's living marine resources. NMFS has primary federal responsibility for the
       conservation, management, and development of living marine resources and for the
       protection of certain marine mammals and endangered species under numerous federal
       laws. NMFS also has responsibilities to the U.S. commercial and marine recreational
       fishing industry, including fishermen; to the states; and to the general public. Under
       these responsibilities, NMFS seeks to achieve continued optimum utilization of living
       marine resources for the benefit of the nation.

 c. U.S. Denartment of Defense (DOD)

       The DOD's national interest is in the provision of national defense and in the
establishment of new or expanded defense siting on land, in the air, and on or under the water.

       (1) Air Force: The Air Force requests that the state program recognize that national
       defense is an essential element of national interest and is one of the high-priority uses of
       air, land, and water resources.

       (2) Army: The Army maintains that Army Reserve Centers should be considered areas
       of national interest because they are a vital part of our national defense.

       (3) Navy: National interests in the coastal zone include installations and activities used
       for defense and defense training because they directly support the ability of the Navy to
       carry out its Joint Mission of Littoral Warfare. Joint Littoral Warfare is the ability to

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part UI 7-6                         August 1996







        mass overwhelming force and deliver it ashore to influence, deter, contain, and overcome
        an enemy. Amphibious forces with their supporting units give the Commander the ability
       to establish another front of operations against an enemy. Tasks implicit in this mission
        include, but are not limited to, mine countermeasures operations, anti-submarine warfare,
       and anti-surface warfare. The area of control to support operations in the littoral area
       extends from the shore to the open ocean and inland from the shore over that area that can
       be supported and defended directly from the sea. The intent of this mission is to
       transition forces from an oceanic transit to regional support. The ability to train in this
       mission area and maintain those forces is vital to mission success.

       (4) Army Corps of Engineers: The Army Corps of Engineers has national interest in
       facilities and programs administered by the Galveston District which identify areas of
       federal involvement in the coastal zone. National interest includes maintenance of
       federally authorized navigation channels, implementation of the regulatory actions
       including Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water
       Act, responding to national emergencies, and support of military functions within the
       State of Texas. This involvement does not constitute "overriding" national concern
       except in the case of a national emergency, when navigation projects would be a vital part
       of a defense program.

 d. U.S. Dernartment of Enerav (DOE)

       Access to domestic energy resources is a matter of national interest. Production of
domestic gas and oil resources has strategic value to the U.S. It creates high-wage jobs, enhances
overall U.S. global competitiveness, preserves the environment, bolsters the economy by
preventing the export of American purchasing power and savings and improving the balance of
trade, and increases energy security by reducing vulnerability to supply disruption of the U.S. or
its allies. It also preserves U.S. gas and oil exploration and development technology leadership
and spreads the use of the best environmental standards to the rest of the world.

 e. U.S. Denartment of the Interior (DOI)

       (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The USFWS statement of national
       interest includes the conservation, management, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
       resources, particularly migratory waterfowl, anadromous fish, and endangered and
       threatened species populations and their habitats, as well as aquatic and wetland
       ecosystems and water quality.

       (2) National Park Service (NPS): The NPS, under its Organic Act of 1916, is charged
       with managing the parks to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
       the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
       such means as will leave them unimpaired for future generations." The General
       Authorities Act of 1970 defined the National Park System as including all the areas
       administered by the NPS "for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other
       purposes."



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-7                        August 1996







       (3) Minerals Management Service (MMS): As a bureau of the Department of the
       Interior, the Minerals Management Service's primary responsibilities are to manage the
       mineral resources located on the nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue
       from the federal OCS and onshore federal and Indian lands, and distribute those revenues.

 f. Federal Emergencv Management Aencv (FEMA)

       FEMA's mission is to assist state and local governments, individuals, and volunteers in
being prepared to save lives and protect real and personal property from natural and
technological hazards. In executing these responsibilities, FEMA seeks to achieve a partnership
with state and local governments, industry, individuals, first responders, volunteers, and other
federal agencies.

  g. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

       USGS has a national interest in the following coastal natural resources and activities: the
definition of the hydrodynamics, flow, sedimentation, and salinity of coastal systems; the
development of predictive computer models to assist in managing these systems; assessment of
hydrology, water quality, ecology and use of coastal surface water and groundwater resources;
investigations of coastal water-resource contamination by point and nonpoint sources; and
mapping of wetlands, floodplains, tidal boundaries, bathymetry, and hydrogeology, aided by the
use of geographic information system technology.

  h. Federal Enerav Reeulatorv Commission (FERC)

       FERC regulates the construction and operation of hydropower facilities located on
navigable waters or otherwise within federal jurisdiction; the construction and operation of
natural gas facilities; the interstate sale of natural gas for resale and transportation; and the
interstate transportation of crude oil and petroleum products. FERC also regulates interstate
sales for resale and transmission of electric power and the rates, terms, and conditions of such
sales and transmission; certifies qualifying facilities under Section 210 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act; and makes exempt wholesale generator determinations under Section
32(a) of Public Utility Holding Company Act.

 i. General Services Administration (GSA)

       The GSA is responsible for acquiring, constructing, and disposing of facilities for federal
agencies and the courts, as well as providing goods and services. The acquisition and
management of the buildings and land required by federal agencies to conduct government
business are done in the national interest. GSA's interests are those of proprietor and lessor. The
functions performed by the agencies occupying GSA-controlled space may also be of national
interest.

 j. U.S. Nuclear Reaulatorv Commission (NRC)

       The NRC is responsible for the licensing and related regulation of nuclear facilities and
materials. The NRC's principal concern is to assure public and occupational radiological health

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-8                          August 1996







and safety and environmental compatibility. The NRC has no overriding national interest in
locating a site within the coastal zone.

 k. U.S. Denartment of Transnortation (USDOT)

       USDOT's national interest includes construction, maintenance, operation, and
improvement of the nation's transportation systems on and under the land, on and under the
water, and in the air. Of special interest in the coastal zone are deepwater ports and oil and
hazardous substance pollution prevention and response. USDOT's general policy is to assure
protection, preservation, and enhancement of the nation's wetlands to the fullest extent
practicable.

       (1) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG): The USCG's activities include aid to navigation,
       boating safety, national defense, bridge administration, maritime law enforcement,
       marine environmental protection and response, marine safety (including marine
       inspection and licensing), port safety and security, search and rescue, and waterways
       management.

       (2) Federal Highways Administration (FHWA): The FHWA's activities include
       planning and providing for improvement of the national highway system, including
       emergency evacuation routes.

       (3) Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA): RSPA activities include
       research and analysis of transportation and socioeconomic effects and regulating
       hazardous materials transportation issues, including pipeline safety.

       (4) Maritime Administration (MARAD): MARAD's activities include fostering the
       development of the American merchant marine to meet national security and domestic
       and foreign commerce needs, development of ports and intermodal transportation
       systems, and maintaining the National Defense Reserve Fleet.

 1. Dernartment of Health and Human Services (HHS)

       (1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The HHS has no facilities,
       programs, or projects of national interest within the Texas coastal zone at this time.
       Should a need to address the national interest in the area of public health arise, that
       interest would be addressed through coordination with the Texas Department of Health
       and the HHS Region VI office.

 m. U.S. Environmental Protection ALencv (EPA)

       EPA's national interest in the coastal zone is in protecting human health and
environmental quality. EPA provides standards and regulations affecting water resources, as
well as controls on pesticides and toxic substances, solid waste disposal, and abandoned
hazardous waste sites. Its interest is to maintain a strong federal floor of protection while
providing substantial involvement of state and local government and the public in
decisionmaking.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 7-9                        August 1996







B. Activities of Re~onal Benefit

        Section 306(d)(12) of the CZMA requires the state to ensure that local government
regulations do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. The
TCMP must identify those activities which are determined to be of regional benefit and
demonstrate how state legal authority will ensure that these activities are not unreasonably
excluded by local government action from locating in the coastal zone.

       Following guidance in the federal CZMA regulations (IS CFR ï¿½923.12), activities are
considered to be of regional benefit in the Texas coastal zone if they:

     * have been identified as "Activities Affecting CNRAs` in 31 TAC ï¿½501.2 of the TCMvIP
       rules, and

     * result in a multi-county environmental, economic, social, or cultural benefit.

       Unreasonable restriction or exclusion of an activity by local government action is that
which is arbitrary and capricious. It involves a local decision not based on rational or legal
factors and implies an exclusion that is a detriment to the region.

1. Identification of Activities of Regional Benefit

       Based on the above criteria, the following activities have been identified as Activities of
Regional Benefit:

  a. Energy Exploration, Production, and Transmission
            * Electric generating facilities
            * Oil and gas exploration, production, transfer, storage, and refining

  b. Regional Waste Treatment Facilities
          0   Industrial wastewater treatment and disposal
          0   Municipal wastewater treatment and disposal, including package plants and
              composting plants
          *   Sewage collection lines
            * Oil and gas waste management facilities

  c. Regional Water Supply Facilities
            * Reservoirs and groundwater pumping stations
            * Water distribution and transmission pipelines and canals
            * Regional water treatment facilities for drinking water

  d. Recreation and Wildlife Management
            * State beaches and associated public facilities
            * State parks and associated public facilities
            * State wildlife management areas
            * Coastal preserves
            * National seashore areas

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 7- 10                          August 1996







   e.  Transportation Facilities
             * State and federal highways and expressways
             * Railroads
             * Airports
             * Ports
             * Navigation channels, particularly the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

   f. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries

   g. Fanning and Ranching
             * Livestock grazing
             * Range management
             * Crop production
             * Wildlife management
             * Agricultural product processing


2. Manauement Authority

       Historically, local exclusion of uses of regional benefit has not been an issue in Texas.
Local municipalities have traditionally welcomed new facilities rather than excluding them
through municipal zoning authority. Coastal counties, with the exception of Cameron and
Willacy, do not have zoning authority that could exclude facilities of regional benefit from
unincorporated areas.

       Procedural requirements ensure that state authorities have adequate notice and
opportunity to respond to actions proposed by local governments that might affect uses of
regional benefit. County and municipal decisions must be made in public meetings held after
due notice (TEX. REV. STAT. ANN. art. 6252-13a, Vernon Supp. 1978).

       In general, the activities identified as being of regional benefit are under direct state
and/or federal management, which will ensure that local actions do not unreasonably restrict or
exclude them from the coastal zone. These legal state authorities include state permitting, such
as permitting of regional waste treatment facilities; direct management, such as TPWD authority
over state wildlife management areas and parks; casements issued by the GLO on state lands for
such uses. as energy production or navigation channels; and state purchase or condemnation of
land for such purposes as highway and railroad rights-of-way.












Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11 7-11                         August 1996







                                    CHAPTER EIGHT.
                                 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
                       AND FEDERAL AGENCY CONSULTATION


A. Background

       In passing the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Congress recognized the
overlapping interests of federal, state, and local governments in the nation's coastal resources.
The CZMA establishes a unique partnership between federal, state, and local governments and
the public to ensure opportunities for public participation in the allocation, protection, and
management of coastal resources.

       The federal regulations, citing. Section 303 of the CZMA, declare that it is national policy
for all federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and
participate with state and local governments and regional agencies in achieving the purposes of
the act (I15 CFR ï¿½923.50 (a)). The general public, state and federal agencies, local governments,
regional agencies, and interest groups must be allowed the opportunity for full participation
during program development and must be allowed to provide further comment during the
program review and approval process.

       This chapter describes how the public, state and federal agencies, local governments,
regional agencies, and interest groups were involved throughout TCMP development and will be
kept involved during program implementation.


B. Direct Public Particination Durini! Program Develoinment

       Varied opportunities for direct public participation and agency involvement in the
development of the TCMP have been offered through such mechanisms as the Executive Committee
and committees formed by the Coastal Coordination Council, state and federal agency task forces,
business, industry, local government and citizen focus groups, and public hearings and information
sessions held in coastal cities.

1. Executive Committee of the Coastal Coordination Council

       On August 6, 1992, the Coastal Coordination Council established the Executive Committee
(EC) to coordinate implementation of Council directives; develop and review policies, issues, and
coastal management matters of state concern; and take public comment. Each Council member
appointed a representative to serve.

       The EC's monthly meetings, subject to the Open Meetings Act and the Texas Administrative
Procedure Act, provided a frequent public forum for discussion of issues related to the development
and implementation of the TCMP. The public was invited to comment on agenda items and was
given the opportunity to comment on other issues during each meeting.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 8-1                         August 1996







       In addition to encouraging public comment, the EC provided for greater participation by state
agencies not represented on the Council by establishing interagency work groups to address specific
coastal issues and to develop policy recommendations for EC and Council consideration. The EC
convened work groups on the TCMP boundary, the critical area program, and the state consistency
review process.

       The Council's proposed rules, adopted by the Council on October 5, 1995, will continue use
of the EC during program implementation.

2. Focus Groups

       Focus groups were established to promote early participation in the TCMP by the regulated
community, primary interest groups, and other groups potentially affected by the TCMP. Focus
groups are used to give diverse interests a clear understanding of the program development process
and to help them formulate and convey their positions on proposals, policies, and procedures.

       The functions of the focus groups are to: (1) educate their constituents about the TCMP and
keep them informed about the program; (2) review TCMP working documents, proposed rules, and
other products and provide comments to Council staff, representing, insofar as possible, a consensus
of their constituents; and (3) maintain contact with interest group constituents and act as ongoing
liaisons with the TCMP. The TCMP focus groups represent the following interests:

   * Agriculture
   * Boating industry
   ï¿½ Chemical industry
   ï¿½ Coastal foundations
   ï¿½ Commercial fishing
   ï¿½ Dredging industry
   * Environmental interests
   * Forestry
   ï¿½ Local government
   ï¿½ Oil and gas industry
   * Port authorities
   * Real estate and economic development
   ï¿½ Research and extension
   ï¿½ Sportfishing
   ï¿½ Utilities


3. Public Meetins. Workshops. and Presentations

       Public meetings and workshops held in coastal cities and Austin have provided the
general public and interest groups with information about the TCMP and the specific coastal
resources and activities managed by the program. Throughout the development process, the
GLO staff has made formal presentations and given informal talks to groups as varied as the
Texas Chemical Council, the Texas Farm Bureau, and the South Texas Mayors' Association.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part U1 8-2                         August 1996








4. Public Particination in Rulemakine

       The state's commitment to comprehensive public participation was evident in the
formulation of the GLO's statewide rules for management of the beach/dune system, an
important component of the TCMP. These rules provide guidance for local government entities
in writing the local beach access and dune protection plans required by state law.

       Public comment on the basic concepts of beach and dune system management was first
obtained from participants in the Dune Protection Training Workshops held during the summer
of 1992. Suggestions from the workshop participants were incorporated into the draft GLO
rules.

       Formal public hearings on the proposed rules were held in Austin, South Padre Island,
Galveston, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, and Surfside Beach during the fall of 1992. During the
public comment period, which was extended to accommodate a larger-than-anticipated response,
the Council received close to 1,000 comments on the proposed rules. The rules were revised on
the basis of these comments, and responses to all comments were included in the preamble to the
published final rules. Upon publication of the final rules, the GLO held informal workshops with
local officials to assist them in understanding and meeting the state requirements.

       Public participation in the development of the TCMP boundary proposal was also
extensive. In early 1993, the EC established an interagency work group to research and delineate
a scientifically and technically sound TCMP boundary. After reviewing available scientific data,
the work group presented a recommended boundary to the State Agency Task Force (SATF).
The SATF reviewed the recommendation and supporting documentation and forwarded the
recommendation to the EC. After its review, the EC voted to present the boundary
recommendation to the Council at its June 3, 1993, meeting. The Council approved publication
of the recommended boundary in the Texas Register for public comment as the proposed TCMP
boundary rule.

       In June and July 1993, the Council held public hearings in McAllen, Corpus Christi,
Victoria, Sugar Land, and Port Arthur to inform the public of the basis for delineation of the
proposed boundary and to solicit public comment. A briefing and status report on the TCMP
preceded each TCMP boundary hearing to give the public a greater understanding of the
significance of the boundary within the program. The Federal Agency Task Force (FATF) was
also asked to comment on the proposed boundary rule at its August 1993 meeting and was
briefed on the public comments received.

       During the public comment period, which ended on August 10, 1993, the Council
received over 120 written comments on the proposed rule. Council staff responded, in writing or
orally at the Council meeting in September 1993, to all comments submitted. The EC voted to
present its recommendation to the Council for adoption of the proposed rule at its September 2,
1993, meeting.

       The preliminary draft TCMP document and draft rules were distributed to the SATF,
FATF, and focus group members on December 13, 1993. These groups were asked to comment

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part II 8-3                       August 1996







by January 29, 1994. The Council received more than 52 written comments and responded
orally to comments presented at the January 28, 1994, Council meeting.

       Based on the comments received on the December TCMP document, the March 1994
Texas Coastal Management Program Public Comment Document was produced. Over I1100
copies were distributed to local governments; to state and federal agency personnel; to
environmental groups; to interests including the oil and gas industry, chemical manufacturers,
agriculture, boating, fishing, ports and navigation, forestry, real estate, and utilities; and to the
general public. Notice of availability of the document was published in the Texas Register and
the TCMP newsletter. In addition, copies of the document were mailed to 16 libraries in the
coastal counties for public examination.

       The 45-day public comment period on the proposed TCMP rules ran from March 18,
1994, to May 2, 1994. During April, seven public hearings were held in Port Lavaca,
Brownsville, Port Arthur, Galveston, Corpus Christi, Houston, and Bay City, and one in Austin
to receive public comment. Notice of the hearings was published in the Texas Register, mailed
to the TCMP newsletter distribution list, and published in local community newspapers. Press
releases were distributed to local newspapers to further publicize the hearings and the comment
period.

       Seven of the hearings were chaired by Land Commissioner Garry Mauro. The Galveston
hearing was chaired by Mayor Barbara Crews, the local government representative on the
Council. More than 660 people attended the hearings. In addition to oral comments from 145
witnesses, more than 163 sets of written comments were received. Written responses to both oral
and written comments were prepared. Notice of the availability of responses to comments was
published in the July/August TCMP newsletter.

       Proposed revisions to the draft rules based on comments received were presented to the
Council on June 28, 1994. The Council voted to publish the proposed rule changes in the Texas
Register and to extend the public comment period for another 60 days, from July 5 to September
6, 1994. Notice of the proposed rule changes and extension of the public comment period was
published in the July 5, 1994, issue of the Texas Register and the July/August TCMP newsletter.
A total of 1,459 copies of the proposed revisions was distributed, including copies to all who had
received the March 1994 document.

       In September 1994, the Council voted to adopt the TCMP rules with changes. The
adopted rules were published in the Texas Register on September 27, 1994. During the program
development process, over 1,000 comments were received and responded to. In addition, more
than 200 meetings were held with groups and individuals to explain and receive feedback on the
TCMP. Support for the program came from both industry and conservation groups.

       In December 1994, the Council approved the TCMP document and submitted it to
Governor Ann Richards. Governor Richards submitted the TCMP document to the Department
of Commerce for approval on December 16, 1.994.

       In March 1995, Governor George W. Bush withdrew the TCMP from the federal
approval process and requested that the legislature review the program. The legislature amended

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 19 8-4                       August 1996







the Coastal Coordination Act and related statutes (House Bill 3226) in several ways including
broadening the Council membership, reducing the geographic scope of the program, eliminating
the Special Area Management Planning Process (SAMP), shortening the time allowed for
consistency review, revising and codifying the definitions of coastal natural resource areas,
providing an exclusive listing of the agency and subdivision actions subject to the program,
identifying the elements of the TCMP, and mandating the establishment of a permitting
assistance group.

       On June 8, 1995, Governor Bush signed amendments to the Coastal Coordination Act and
related statutes into law in a ceremony in Corpus Christi, Texas.

       On June 29, 1995, the Council proposed amendments to the TCMP rules to conform them
to House Bill 3226. These proposed amendments were available for public comment for 45 days
after publication in the Texas Register on July 18, 1995. In addition, the Council conducted two
public hearings on the proposed amendments, in Corpus Christi and Galveston. A total of 210
comment letters and 38 oral testimonies were received during the comment period.

       Before voting to amend the TCMP rules at its October 5, 1995, meeting, the Council took
additional public comment.


C. Public ParticiDation Durini Promram Implementation

       To ensure public participation in state and federal consistency determinations and other
program decisions, such as rule certification, the Council will publish notice in the Texas
Register for a minimum of 30 days and in the TCMP newsletter. The Council may hold special
hearings in addition to its quarterly public meetings to solicit public comment on its
deliberations. This is in addition to the public participation prescribed by the permitting
procedures of individual agencies.

       The Coastal Coordination Act establishes a Permitting Assistance Group (PAG) to
coordinate preliminary reviews of agency and subdivision actions subject to the TCMP.
Preliminary reviews are intended to provide direct Council input into the agency or local
government permitting process to assist in the identification and resolution of any consistency
issues. Public comment will be solicited on the request for preliminary consistency review via
publication of a notice of request in the Texas Register.

       The PAG will also facilitate preapplication assistance upon request to any individual or
sinall business owner filing an application for an agency or subdivision permit or other action
subject to the TCMP. Depending on applicants' individual needs, this assistance will include the
provision of. (1) a list of the permits or other approvals necessary for the project; (2) a simple,
understandable statement of all permit requirements; (3) a coordinated schedule for each agency's
or subdivision's decision on the action; (4) a list of all the information the agencies or
subdivisions need to declare the applications for the permits or other approvals administratively
complete; (5) assistance in completing applications as needed; and (6) if enough information is
available, a preliminary finding regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Regulations
for provision of preapplication assistance by the PAG will be developed by the Council in the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 8-5                          August 1996







future through the Individual and Small Business Permit Assistance Task Force. These
regulations will be made available for public comment prior to their adoption.

       The public will be informed of a request for application assistance through publication of
a notice of request in the Texas Register. The public will have the opportunity to comment on
determinations made by the PAG.

       The Council will establish an advisory committee to assist in implementation of the
TCMP and to provide a formal mechanism for ongoing public input into the program. Four or
five regional subcommittees will be established to represent citizens, local governments, and
other interested parties in each coastal region. The advisory committee will meet at least
annually and will report regularly to the Council. By law, the advisory committee members
must be persons with expertise in coastal matters and persons who live in the coastal zone.

       To facilitate public participation in the TCMP, the regional subcommittees will be
responsible for identifying coastal issues of concern in each region, hosting regular local
meetings in each region, and disseminating program information to the public. They will
conduct an ongoing evaluation of the TCMP and contribute to the annual TCMP report.


D. Public Information On The TCMP

       General program information distributed to the public describes the benefits and
requirements of the CZMA, TCMP development activities, and ongoing avenues for public
participation in both development and implementation of the program. Specific information is
provided on individual program elements, including:

   ï¿½ wetland protection
   ï¿½ erosion response and dune protection planning
   *  energy resources management
   ï¿½  marine debris
   *  water resource management
   *  nonpoint-source pollution.

1. Publications

       Publications including the TCMP newsletter, fact sheets, brochures, and reports have
been distributed to the public by mail and at meetings, workshops, conferences, and displays at
special events in an ongoing effort to keep the public informed and involved throughout the
TCMP development process. These publications will be updated, supplemented, and distributed
to the public during program implementation.

       The TCMP staff at the GLO maintains a mailing list comprising over 4,800 names.
Included are TCMP committee and task force members; local and state officials; individuals who
have inquired about the TCMP; state and regional environmental groups; other state agencies;
realtors; developers; citizens' groups; neighborhood associations; representatives of the tourist
industry, the petroleum and chemical industries, and the fishing industry; university programs;

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part U  8-6                         August 1996







        and other affected parties. Membership lists are continually solicited from various interest
         goups and organizations, as well as at special event displays, meetings, presentations, and
is workshops ~for addition to the mailing list.
               Everyone on the TCMP mailing list receives the Coastal Management Program
        newsletter, published bimonthly. The newsletter lists all Council and EC meetings, announces
        the publication of proposed rules and other documents in the Texas Register, lists available
        TCMIP public education materials, and gives updates on the development of the program. The
        newsletter has often included proposed or draft documents in their entirety and will continue to
        include similar information after implementation of the program to ensure public access to the
        information.

               When meetings, hearings, or other events cannot be effectively advertised in the TCMP
        newsletter, special mailouts to the mailing list are prepared. Special mailouts were necessary to
        inform the public of the June 1995 and October 1995 Council meetings.

        2. Information Packets

               A TCMP information packet is distributed to anyone inquiring about the program. It
        includes background information about the TCMP, coastal issues, and program development
       activities; a copy of the federal CZMA; and copies of state coastal management legislation.
       Issue-specific information on individual TCMP elements was added as the program developed.
       During the program development phase, more than 800 packets were distributed to state and
       federal agencies, local organizations, and individuals who requested current and historical
       information about the program.

       3. Media

               The TCMP maintains close communication with major local newspapers and television
       and radio stations through press releases and press conferences to promote events, to keep the
       public informed about program development, and to encourage public participation.

               The principal newspapers serving the coastal zone are the Houston Chronicle, Galveston
       Daily News, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Mc~llen Monitor, Brownsville Herald, Brazosport
       Facts, Bay City Tribune, Port Athur News, Victoria -Advocate, Valley Morning Star, and
       Beaumont Enterprise. The GLO publishes notices in coastal newspapers to announce
       workshops, public meetings, and hearings. The news media are invited to all TCMP events.

               The press has been highly effective in generating interest in the TCMP. Articles
       appeared in several coastal newspapers following the public hearings on the proposed TCMP
       boundary. For example, the June 30, 1993, edition of The Monitor, a McAllen newspaper,
       contained an article titled "Welcome to the Coastline," which described the TCMP boundary
       proposal and outlined the program. Visits by program staff to coastal communities to speak
       about the TCMP have been well publicized.

               On November 16,1992, the GLO and the TNRCC held a press conference in Corpus
       Christi to jointly announce the development of the TCMP and the addition of Corpus Christi Bay

       Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 8-7                         August 1996







to the National Estuary Program. The press conference was held in conjunction with the wetland
workshops, TCMP information sessions, and public hearings on the proposed GLO rules for
management of the beach/dune system. Four Corpus Christi news stations, including a Spanish-
language station, covered the press conference. The coverage ran in the 6:00 p.m. and 10:00
p.m. television news broadcasts and included footage of the area's beaches, bays, barrier islands,
and wetlands.

       The press attended and covered the TCMP boundary hearings in June and July 1993, as
well as the eight public hearings held in April 1994 on the proposed Council rules and the March
18, 1994, draft program document.

4. Exhibits

       Opportunities for the TCMP staff to publicize the TCMP and distribute information about
the program arise frequently. Staff from the GLO and other participating state agencies present
information about the program through speeches, slide shows, and display booths at schools,
conferences, workshops, meetings, and special events.

       TCMP displays have been exhibited at conferences and coastal festivals not only in
coastal cities and towns, but also in inland cities such as Austin and Dallas. For example, a
TCMP display was exhibited at Galveston's "Bay Day" festival, at the Texas State Fair in Dallas,
and at the Galveston Bay Foundation's Lobby Day in Austin.


E. Federal Agencv Consultation

       The state initiated coordination with federal agencies on development of the TCMP
through creation of the Federal Agency Task Force (FATF). The FATF held its first meeting in
June of 1993. The FATF assisted in the development of the TCMP by providing information on
the national interest, federal consistency review, and the resource data inventory. Members of
the FATF were:

   *   Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
   ï¿½   Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IV
   ï¿½ Minerals Management Service
   ï¿½   National Marine Fisheries Service
   *   National Park Service - Padre Island National Seashore
   *   U.S. Army Corps'of Engineers, Galveston District
       U.S. Coast Guard
   *   U.S. Department-of Energy
   *   U.S. Department of the Air Force
   ï¿½ U.S. Department of the Navy
   ï¿½   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
   *   U.S. Geological Survey
   *   USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II 8-8                        August 1996







                  Consultation with federal agencies also occurred through direct correspondence with the
           agencies' Washington offices. Certified letters were mailed to federal agencies on July 9, 1993,
is ~~to inform them of the status of the program and to solicit comments on the state's proposed
           coastal management boundary. Additional certified letters were mailed on August 12, 1993,
          requesting each agency to submit, by September 15, 1993, a written statement of its
           interpretation of the national interest in planning for and siting facilities on the Texas coast that
          are more than local in nature.

                  On August 16, 1993, the TCMP staff made a presentation to the FATF in Austin covering
          the schedule for development of the TCMP submission document, background information on
          the TCMP boundary and public comments received, the national interest in planning for and
          siting facilities which are more than local in nature, plan coordination, and the TCMP policy
          development process. Each agency was asked to list its activities and authorities relevant to
          coastal management for inclusion in the TCMP hearing document for federal consistency
          procedures.

                  The FATF met on October 12, 1993, to discuss the TCMP development timeline, uses to
          be managed, including the initial list of state and federal actions and authorizations subject to
          consistency review, and the revised CNRA definitions. FATF members provided GLO staff with
          a comprehensive list of federal actions that could be subject to consistency review.

                 The FATF met on January 11, 1994, to discuss the TCMP development timeline and the
          preliminary TCMP document, including the federal consistency review process, goals and
          policies, national interest, and plan coordination. Most federal agencies on the FATF submitted
          revised national interest statements.

                 At its April 12, 1994, meeting, the FATF discussed member agencies' conmments on the
          March 1994 Public Comment Document. Comments centered on the federal consistency review
          provisions and on excluded federal lands. In addition, GLO staff traveled to Clear Lake before
          submission of the TCMP document to OCRM in 1994 and held a joint briefing and question-
          and-answer session with the two coastal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offices and the Galveston
          office of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

                 Consultation with federal agencies continued through July 1995, when amendments to
          the TCMvP rules were proposed in the Texas Register. Comments letters were received from the
          USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, OCRM, Corps, EPA Region 6, U.S. Fish and
          Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Minerals Management Service, and Naval
          Station Ingleside. The concerns of the federal agencies were addressed in the preamble to the
          rules when they were adopted by the Council.

                 On January 18, 1996, GLO staff sent letters to Region 6 of the Environmental Protection
          Agency, the Minerals Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Galveston
          District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Clear Lake office of the U.S. Fish and
          Wildlife Service updating them on the status of federal approval of the TCMP and responding to
          earlier comments from these agencies. GLO staff followed the letters by conducting several

          meetings to discuss any remaining issues with the staffs of Region 6 of the Environmental

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    part 11 8-9                         August 1996







Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Galveston District of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Clear Lake office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

        Continuing consultation with federal agencies will be achieved primarily through the
TCMP federal consistency review process. In addition, the FATF will continue to meet at least
quarterly to ensure ongoing participation by federal agencies. The biweekly permit coordination
meeting of the Corps of Engineers will also ensure advancement of state-federal coordination.















































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   PartiI 8-10                         August 1996





0



                        Part III
            ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT





0











i








                                          PART 191
  REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

A. Purnose and Need for Action

     The purpose and need for Federal approval of the Texas Coastal Management Program
arises out of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as amended (I16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.). The CZMA affirmns the national interest in the effective protection and development of the
coastal zone by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal states to develop and
implement rational programs for managing their coastal zones to advance the national objectives
included in the Act.

    Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the necessary direction
for developing these state programs. These guidelines and requirements for program
development and approval are contained in 15 CFR Part 923. In summary, the requirements for
program approval are that a state develop a program that:

    (1) Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the CZMA that require
management or protection by the state.

    (2) Reexamines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These
policies must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable, and must provide an adequate degree
of predictability as to how coastal resources will be managed.

    (3) Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the
management program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. The management of
uses, or their impacts, and areas, should be based on resource capability and suitability analyses,
socio-economic considerations and public preferences.

    (4) Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the management program.

    (5) Provides for the consideration of the national interest in the planning for the. siting of
facilities that meet more than local requirements.

    (6) Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational structure to implement the
program and to ensure conformance to it.

    Increases in population and development activities in coastal Texas along with their
attendant impacts such as habitat loss, the increased exposure of lives and property to natural
hazards such as coastal flooding and erosion, the degradation of coastal bays and estuaries
because of adverse effects to water quality and quantity, and the fragmented government
approach to addressing these coastal issues reinvigorated both grassroots and state agency efforts
in Texas to develop a comprehensive coastal management program for Federal approval. As a
result, after four years of program development, Governor George Bush submitted a proposed
Texas Coastal Management Program to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) on October 19, 1995, for approval pursuant to Section 3 06 of the CZMA.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  part 111- I                         August 1996







    OCRM has made a preliminary determination that the program meets the requirements of
the CZMA, as amended. The proposed major Federal action necessitating this DEIS is,
therefore, Federal approval of the Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP). Pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq., NOAA has prepared
this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to assess the environmental impacts
associated with the approval and implementation of the coastal management program submitted
to NOAA by the State of Texas.

B. Alternatives IncludinL the ProDosed Action

Introduction

    The proposed major Federal action is NOAA approval of the Texas Coastal Management
Program. The alternatives available to the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and
Coastal Zone Management (the Assistant Administrator) include delaying approval and denying
approval (the no-action alternative). In approving a coastal management program (the preferred
alternative), the Assistant Administrator must find that a state has met the Federal approval
requirements of the CZMA at 15 CFR Part 923. Delay or denial of program approval could be
based on a determination that the Texas Coastal Management Program does not meet any of the
requirements of the CZMA, as amended, or a finding that Federal funding of the State program
would not advance the objectives of the CZMA. The Texas Coastal Management Program,
which is the subject of the proposed approval, is described in Part II of this document. A table
cross-referencing CZMA requirements with sections from this document may be found in Part I.
Texas could modify parts of the program or withdraw its application for Federal approval if the
preferred alternative changes as a result of public comments or other CZMA considerations. A
final program EIS will be prepared and will include responses to comments received on this draft
EIS.

    This section of the document presents the various alternatives available to the Assistant
Administrator and the environmental effects of those alternatives for the purpose of comparison.
In addition, in an effort to elicit public and agency comment and to assure that the Assistant
Administrator's determination will be appropriate, this section also identifies possible
programmatic reasons for delaying or denying approval of the TCMP identified through the
public review process to date.

1.  Alternative #1  Approve the TCMP (Preferred Alternative)

    Approval of the TCMP should result in overall positive environmental effects. This analysis
is based on a careful review of the management program as well as NOAA's twenty years of
experience administering the National Coastal Zone Management Program.

    There are four effects on the natural and human environment directly attributable to Federal
approval of the TCMP. First, Texas would be eligible to receive Federal financial assistance for
program implementation and enhancement. These funds would positively contribute to improve
management of the natural and human environment. Second, approval places an obligation on
Federal agencies to act in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
TCMP's enforceable policies when conducting or supporting activities within, or outside, the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part III- 2                         August 1996







State's coastal zone that could affect coastal resources or land and water uses within the coastal
zone. This will significantly impact the Federal decision-making process related to land and
water use decisions within and outside the Texas coastal zone. Third, Texas would be required
to consider the national interest in energy and other facilities of national importance as well as
nationally important coastal resources in its decision-making. Fourth, program approval would
satisfy a critical eligibility criteria for ports in Texas to be able to obtain deepwater port licenses
pursuant to the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C.S. ï¿½{1503).

Section 306. 306A. 309 Funding

    Federal approval will enhance the State of Texas's financial ability to carry out its various
coastal management efforts in accordance with TCMP policies. Texas will rely to a considerable
degree on the program funding made available in annual Federal financial assistance awards
under Sections 306, 306A, and 309 of the CZMA, both for program administration and for the
Texas coastal management assistance program. Federal CZMA Section 306 funding will support
additional staff, contracts, and other resources to enhance implementation of core TCMP laws.
Local governments, as well as a broad range of other entities, will benefit from money available
through the TCMP assistance fund. The State expects to use CZMA Section 306 funds to (1)
enhance local government capacity to respond to coastal natural hazards by funding local
planning and management efforts; (2) enhance state and local government management of
critical areas (e.g., wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, and tidal flats) within their
jurisdictions; (3) support development of an ecotourism industry in coastal Texas through the
provision of assistance to local governments to develop plans for ecotourism; (4) streamline
permitting processes and provide technological and technical assistance to make regulatory
processes less costly and more efficient; (5) improve information for decision-making through
efforts to develop baseline data and maps necessary for sound implementation of the TCMP
goals and policies; and (6) enhance public education and outreach on coastal processes and
management issues as well as TCMP requirements by developing and distributing materials such
as user's manuals and by hosting public meetings, workshops, and conferences where technical
information can be exchanged and training can be obtained.

    Federal CZMA Section 306A low-cost construction funding will be used to achieve positive
environmental impacts. Texas has one of the strongest sets of laws in the nation protecting public
access to the beach. However, increased shoreline development makes meeting the shoreline
access needs of the public a challenge. CZMA Section 306A funds can be used to acquire
additional access corridors and enhance existing access (e.g., off-beach parking, dune walkovers,
public bathrooms). CZMA Section 306A funds are also expected to be used to revitalize urban
waterfronts. TCMP funds can be used to revitalize urban waterfronts to provide enhanced
recreational opportunities and boost local economies.

    Federal CZMA Section 309 funds will allow Texas to continue to enhance its approved
program policies and procedures to address emerging priority needs in one or more of the
following categories: (1) protecting, restoring or enhancing the existing coastal wetlands resource
base or creating new coastal wetlands; (2) developing and adopting procedures to assess,
consider, and control cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and development; (3)
reducing marine debris; (4) planning for the use of ocean resources; (5) preventing or
significantly reducing threats to life and property by eliminating development and redevelopment

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part IIm- 3                        August 1996







in high hazard areas and managing development in other hazard areas; (6) attaining increased
opportunities for public access; and (7) facilitating the siting of energy facilities in an
environmentally responsible manner.

     Funding for such efforts is expected to have direct beneficial impacts on the natural and
socio-economic environment of the coastal region, through protection of natural areas and other
sensitive resources, waterfront revitalization, comprehensive planning, streamlining of permits
and the monitoring of their effects, and conflict resolution. The integrated management approach
of a coordinated cooperative TCMP is expected to result in direct benefits to the environment
through a heightened proactive focus on coastal resource management. The TCMP provides the
framework for a partnership among state and local agencies and other entities, public and private,
to cooperate to preserve, protect, develop and restore the region's unique values.

Federal Consistency

    Federal approval and implementation of the TCM1P will have effects upon Federal agency
actions. Approval will activate the Federal consistency provisions of Section 307 of the CZMA.
The TCMP federal consistency process and relevant provisions of 15 CFR Part 930 are described
in Chapter Seven. Because federal consistency entails early coordination and closer cooperation
in planning as well as review of project proposals, it is presumed that federal consistency will
provide another means to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts by
expanding policies to comprehensively manage all private, state and Federal activities that
adversely affect CNRAs. This is considered to be a desirable impact and one of the primary
purposes of the CZMA. i

    The TCMIP has been developed with the assistance and input of numerous Federal agencies
having responsibility for activities in or affecting the coastal area. Therefore, conflicts between
the TCMIP's enforceable policies and federally permitted or conducted activities should be
minimal. Federal activities will not be excluded, but will be required to be consistent with the
TCMP's policies.

National Interest Considerations

    Federal approval of Texas' program will also certify that Texas has an acceptable procedure
to ensure the adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities so
as to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. These facilities generally involve
energy production or transmission, recreation, interstate transportation, production of food and
fiber, national defense, etc.

    Texas has identified the following facilities, activities and natural resources as being in the
national interest, and therefore as factors that need to be considered in the siting of facilities:
defense and aerospace facilities and activities; energy exploration, production, and transmission
facilities and associated activities; transportation facilities and activities; water resources
development facilities and activities; water, air, and land pollution control facilities and
activities; natural and technological hazard control activities; recreational facilities and activities;

coastal natural resources including wetlands, fish and wildlife species and habitats, threatened

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS   Part 11- 4                            August 1996







           and endangered species and habitats, cultural, historical, and archeological areas, natural hazard
is ~~~areas, and barrier islands.

                This policy requirement of the CZMA is intended to assure that national concerns related to
           facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implementation of a state's
           coastal management program. The requirement should not be construed as compelling states to
           propose a program that accommodates certain types of facilities. It works to assure that such
           national concerns are not arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted in the management
           program.

                This provision may have two impacts. First, it ensures that a state has a process and a
           program that does not prohibit or exclude a use or activity dependent on the coastal zone. In the
           absence of a comprehensive program such considerations might simply be ignored by oversight
           or default. This requirement will ensure that they are specifically considered. Second, the
           existence of consultative procedure should lead to more deliberate and less fragmented decision-
           making concerning the siting of facilities in the coastal zone.

           Eligibility for Other Coastal Manaaemnent Benefits and Assistance

                The Corpus Christi and Houston Port Authorities have been interested in constructing a
           deepwater port, partly in response to the Mega Borg and other oil spills. However, in order to
           develop and operate a deepwater port, the port authority or other applicant must first receive a
           license from the Department of Transportation (Coast Guard). The Deepwater Port Act of 1974,
O         ~~~as amended (33 U.S.C.S. ï¿½ 1503) provides that, among other reasons, the Secretary of
           Transportation will not issue a license unless the coastal state to which the deepwater port is to
           be connected has developed or is making reasonable progress in developing a Federally approved
           coastal management program.

                The development of one or more deepwater ports could have substantial positive impacts on
           a wide array of coastal resources such as wetlands, estuaries, and beaches. The construction of
           deepwater port facilities would reduce the risk of tanker accidents and thereby reduce the risk of
           major and chronic oil spills in the busy nearshore navigation channels. While construction of
           such a port may have some potential adverse impacts such as oil spills associated with unloading
           crude oil, these adverse impacts would be outweighed by the positive impacts associated with the
           reduced risk from tanker accidents and more frequent and chronic spills.

           Indirect Effects of Federal Appnroval

                Federal approval of the TCMP will have two broad indirect consequences for Texas. First,
           it will improve the institutional capacity of government at all levels to manage the coastal natural
           resources and the activities that impact them. Second, it will provide more clear and effective
           policies to address the principal issues of state concern.

                The TCMP will improve the institutional capacity of government to address coastal issues
*        ~~~and problems in several ways. First, through the application of uniform coastal policies and
           procedures, government entities will evaluate and manage activities in a more consistent manner.
           The TCMP will enhance coordination among government entities and increase predictability in

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part 11- 5                           August 1996







government decision-making. The uniform coastal policies in the TCMIP will reduce the conflict
and overlap of current government policies governing activities in the coastal zone.

     Second, the TCM4P will result in enhanced government accountability. The TCMP includes
policies and procedures designed to help resolve conflicts between the objectives of various
Federal, state, and local entities in the coastal zone. Through preliminary review of agency
actions and rules, disputes can be identified and resolved early in the review process, thus
resulting in coastal decision-making that is more accountable to the public. In cases of persistent
disputes or conflict, the Council will act as a dispute resolution body through the exercise of
State Consistency Review authority.

    Third, the TCMP will promote greater public participation in coastal decision-making. As
directed by the Legislature, the Council will create advisory committees to help identify and
address the issues and concerns facing coastal communities and resource stakeholders. These
committees will be made up of individuals with expertise in coastal matters and representing
broad interests. The committees will provide regular input to the Council and assist in
preparation of the annual report to the Legislature. The public will also have the opportunity to
participate in government decisions affecting the coastal zone when the TCM1P policies are
applied to their decisions. Finally, the public will have direct and regular access to the Council,
creating a forum for the discussion and resolution of coastal issues of concern to the public.
Overall, the TCMP will enhance the institutional capacity of government entities in Texas to
address coastal issues.

Enhanced Coastal Policies

    The TCMIP is a networked program based largely upon the exercise of existing state
authorities. However, several policies are expected to add to and strengthen Texas's coastal
management efforts to prevent adverse impacts on coastal resources.

    First, the TCMIP policies governing dredging and dredged material disposal will promote
greater beneficial use of dredged material and promote avoidance and minimization of the
adverse effects associated with these practices. The TCM1P requires beneficial use of dredged
material where the costs of such practices are reasonably comparable to the costs of non-
beneficial use options. Where the costs of beneficial use exceed those of non-beneficial use
options, beneficial use is required if the benefits exceed the additional costs. Although the
TCMP dredge policy may have a short-term impact on navigation and maintenance of channels,
implementation of the policy is expected to result in long-term benefits to Texas and to the
State's coastal resources. Greater beneficial use of dredged material will help Texas more
effectively respond to erosion problems, promote health and restoration of coastal natural
resource areas, improve Texas's beaches, thus increasing tourism and enhancing the coastal
economy, and improve commercial fishing by enhancing productive nearshore estuarine habitats.

    Second, the TCMP will improve beach access and dune protection by ensuring more
consistent and effective application of the Open Beaches Act and Dune Protection Act. These
statutes, implemented through local beach access and dune protection plans, are networked into
the TCMIP. Local governments are expected to seek grants through the TCMP to enhance their
capacity to implement these critical programs.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part 11- 6                            August 1996







     Third, the TCMP will enhance management of coastal wetlands and other critical habitats
through the critical areas policy. The TCMP establishes for the first time a single state policy
governing critical areas in the coastal zone. Implementation of this policy will improve
management of wetlands, oyster reefs, sand and mud flats, and other critical coastal resources.
The policy emphasizes avoidance and minimization of the impacts activities have on these
resources. The state Section 401 certification procedures, as administered by the TNRCC and
the RRC, have been improved as a result of the TCMP policy. Ensuring consistency among
agency regulatory programs will in itself promote more effective management of critical areas.

     Effective implementation of the TCMP will require more coordination among government
entities taking actions and regulating activities in the coastal zone. The benefits to the public, to
the regulated community, and to coastal resources will outweigh the increased cost of better
government coordination.

    For a more detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of Federal approval of the
TCMP, see Part III Section D, Environmental Consequences (p. 111-51).

2. Alternative #2: Deny Apmroval of the TCMP

    The primary effects of denying approval to the TCMP would be the loss of Federal CZMA
Section 306, 306A and 309 funds; the loss of Federal consistency authority; ineligibility for
deepwater port licenses, and no assurances that national interests in coastal management would
be considered.

    The loss of Federal funds would result in adverse environmental impacts due to the
diminished ability of Texas to (1) implement, coordinate or enhance its program at the state and
local levels; (2) pass through to local governments funds necessary to ensure adequate
implementation of relevant portions of the program; (3) provide technical assistance and training
to local governments essential for the development of a more effective and efficient coastal
program; (4) provide permitting and technical assistance to applicants to make the regulatory
process more efficient and effective; (5) conduct assessments of, and develop recommendations
for improving, program effectiveness; (6) complete low-cost construction projects per 306A; (7)
develop the scientific basis for refining and improving coastal policies and decision-making; and
(8) conduct public education and outreach efforts related to coastal management.

    Adverse impacts could also result from the loss of Federal consistency authority. Federal
agencies would likely continue to take actions that have potentially significant and adverse
environmental effects on coastal resources and uses, without adequate review and input from
Texas regarding its coastal management policies.

    Without approval, Texas will not be required to ensure that national concerns related to
facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implementation of a state
coastal management program. This could also result in less deliberate and more fragmented
decision-making concerning the siting of facilities in the coastal zone.

    Denial of program approval would render port authorities or other entities within Texas
ineligible to receive deepwater port licenses from the Coast Guard, pursuant to the Deepwater

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part II- 7                            August 1996







Port Act. The loss of the ability to develop deepwater ports could result in potentially significant
environmental impacts from increased risks of oil spills and the potential impacts from dredging
wider and deeper channels to accommodate tankers in a safer manner as an alternative to
deepwater ports. In addition, the loss of opportunity to develop deepwater ports may have
moderate socio-economic impacts to the State and communities that would benefit economically
from these ports, such as Corpus Christi and the Houston/Galveston area.

3. Alternative #3: Delav Atproval of the TCMP

     The option of delaying approval would have the same general impacts noted above, albeit
possibly for a shorter duration. The impact of delaying approval would nonetheless be felt due to
the inability of Texas to receive additional CZMA Section 305 program development funds.
This is due to provisions in the CZARA which allow states to receive 305 funds for only a
maximum of two years. While the loss of Federal program development funds might not
prohibit development of an approvable program, it would still result in a financial burden to the
State and hinder present efforts to improve government coordination and make Texas'
management of its coastal resources more effective.

4. Promrammatic Reasons for Delaving or Denvine Atmroval

    The following section identifies possible programmatic reasons that the Assistant
Administrator might delay or deny approval of the TCMP. These are primarily issues that were
identified in the State's public review process used in developing its management program. The
following are considered subsets of both the alternatives to deny or delay program approval. This
section is included in order to elicit public comment and assure that the Assistant Administrator's
final determination will be appropriate.

A. The Assistant Administrator could deny or delav annroval of the TCMP if the adopted inland
boundary of the TCMP is not adeauate to meet CZMA reauirements.

    Section 306(d)(2) of the CZMA and 15 CFR ï¿½923.31 require that states establish an inland
coastal zone boundary which is sufficient to include areas sufficient to capture all uses with
direct and significant impacts to coastal waters, all CNRAs, waters under saline influence, salt
marshes and wetlands, beaches, transitional and intertidal areas, and islands and must be
presented in a manner that is clear enough for the public to determine whether they are in or
outside of the boundary. OCRM has made a preliminary determination that the TCMP boundary
meets these requirements.

    Some commenters have raised the issue of whether the inland coastal boundary is sufficient
to encompass all coastal wetlands. Texas received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that some freshwater wetlands (coastal prairies) were not included in the inland
boundary. The primary CZMA requirement for establishing the inland boundary is the inclusion
of marshes and other wetlands with salt-tolerant vegetation. While NOAA acknowledges that
these freshwater wetlands can serve as important habitat, these wetlands are not salt-tolerant and
provide habitat primarily for non-marine-related species. As such, the CZMA does not require
Texas to include these wetlands in its CZMA boundary. It should be noted that the Texas coastal
zone boundary encompasses nearly 5 million acres of land and 4 million acres of waters. Based

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part III- 8                        August 1996







on these considerations, the Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary finding that the
State's inland boundary, based on the State's Coastal Facilities Designation Line (CFDL), is
sufficient to encompass all coastal wetlands as required in 15 CFR ï¿½923.31 (b)(1-8).

B.  The Assistant Administrator could deny or delay aDProval of the TCMP if the rroaram
     policies and authorities are not sufficient to meet CZMA reauirements with resard to
     managing important coastal wetlands.

     The CZMA approval and implementation regulations specifically require state coastal
programs to include policies and authorities that will minimize the destruction, loss or
degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural values (15 CFR ï¿½923.3).

     The ability of Texas to manage activities on privately owned submerged lands and wetlands
has been an issue since the State began developing a program in the 1970's. Until recently, the
State relied on its submerged lands authorities to manage coastal wetlands on state-owned lands.
In response, during program development Texas enhanced several of its existing authorities to
provide the needed authority to address the management of all coastal wetlands. Texas will rely
on the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission's and Railroad Commission's use of
their Section 401 water quality certification authority to manage critical areas, including
wetlands, on privately as well as publicly owned lands. The Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission and the Railroad Commission spent considerable effort in revising
their Section 401 water quality certification rules (31 TAC 279 and 16 TAC 3.8) in order to
ensure that the State possesses adequate authority to comprehensively manage coastal wetlands.
Both sets of rules provide for application of a sequencing of avoidance, minimization and
compensation for adverse impacts to wetlands based on the Federal Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) guidelines.

    Commentors have raised concerns during program development regarding the adequacy of
the State's wetlands policies in general (31 TAC 501.14(h)) and specifically the adequacy of the
State's sequencing provisions, the alternatives test (which should provide a rebuttable
presumption that, in the case of nonwater-dependent uses, alternative upland sites with less
environmental impacts are presumed to exist unless demonstrated otherwise), the definition of
water dependency; and provisions for considering compensatory mitigation (which should not be
considered as a practicable alternative to avoidance of impacts). In response, Texas has revised
its definition of water-dependent uses (31 TAC 501.3 (13)) so that it provides an appropriate
alternatives test in its sequencing requirements. Finally, Texas has provided additional
clarification of the critical areas policies including considerations of compensatory mitigation in
the sequencing provision in Part II Chapter Four (p. 4-38) and implementation of the policies in
Chapter Six (page 6-24) of this document.

C.  The Assistant Administrator could deny or delav annroval of the TCMP if the State does not
    possess adeauate organizational structure or mechanisms to implement and enforce the
    management nrosram

    Commentors have raised concerns regarding the ability of Texas to ensure compliance with
the TCMP policies of networked state agencies, local governments, and individuals--especially
in light of the legislative changes that were made to the Council's ability to administratively

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  Part III- 9                         August 1996







require compliance of networked state agencies and local governments (see detailed discussion in
Part II, Chapter Five, p. 5-4 to 5-10).

     Texas will rely on several mechanisms to ensure enforcement of the TCMP policies: the
networked state agencies and local governments, the Council in conjunction with the Attorney
General, and the public. First, networked State agencies and local governments are required by
the CCA to comply with and enforce the policies of the TCMP against private parties when
undertaking actions subject to the program. State agencies and local governments will be
assisted by the Permitting Assistance Group (PAG) through preapplication assistance and
preliminary reviews to ensure that projects and state actions are in compliance with TCM1P
policies.

    The state consistency review procedures provide an avenue for the Council in conjunction
with the Attorney General to initiate legal action against an agency for failure to comply with the
coastal policies. Under the state consistency review process, the Council will provide oversight
of program implementation and dispute resolution functions through a review of contested
actions referred to the Council for consistency with the TCMP policies, and ongoing monitoring
of state agency and local government implementation of the coastal policies. When proposing an
action, state agencies and local governments must prepare a formal consistency determination
that concludes that the proposed action is consistent with the TCMP policies. This determination
can be challenged by citizens, state agencies or Council members. If the determination is
contested, and referred to the Council and the Council determines that the action is inconsistent,
the Council will direct the agency to modify the action so that it is consistent with the TCMP
policies. If the agency does not modify its action consistent with Council recommendations, and
the Attorney General concurs that the agency action is inconsistent, then the Attorney General
will initiate legal action against the state agency to compel compliance.

    In addition, in order to enhance consistent implementation of policies, most state agencies
and local governments have committed through formal agreements to submit their existing and
new operating rules and regulations to the Council for consistency certification. Once their rules
are certified as consistent, the agencies can establish thresholds for referral which would limits
on the Council's ability to review individual agency actions. While these thresholds for referral
would place limits the Council's ability to use the state consistency review process to ensure
compliance, they are not a permanent bar. The TCMP also provides for both an ongoing and
annual monitoring of agency and local government actions--through an annual report--to assess
an agency's or local government's implementation of the program. If, after a review of the
annual reports and ongoing monitoring information, the Council detects a pattern of
noncompliance (either finding that an agency or local government has not implemented or
enforced the TCMP policies or that they have amended or modified their rules in a manner
inconsistent with TCMP policies) the Council may issue a notice of program deficiency and
ultimately can revoke certification of agency rules, which would terminate the operation of any
thresholds for referral.

    The Council will be assisted in its monitoring responsibilities by the GLO, which will act as
staff for the Council and assist with agency and local government monitoring. Finally, in a
number of cases, Texas can also rely on the ability of citizens to act to ensure compliance with
TCMP policies. Based on this information, the Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 10                       August 1996







determination that the TCMP program organization and mechanisms are adequate for the
purposes of the CZMA. For more details see Part II, Chapter Five.

D.  The Assistant Administrator could denv or delav oroaram antroval if it is determined that
     the State has not adeauatelv accommodated comments from the Corns of Eneineers related
    to the State's nolicies on dredina and dredged material disposal.

     Section 306(d)(1) of the CZMA and implementation regulations at 15 CFR 923.51 require
that states must give adequate consideration to Federal agency comments on the development of
the program. At the time of program submission, the only outstanding Federal agency issues
were those raised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) with regard to modifying the
State's policies related to dredging and dredged material disposal for the following reasons or
allowing more time for review and additional comment. Texas has since held additional
discussions with the Corps and has provided additional clarification on this policy.

    First, at the time of program submission, the Corps expressed concerns in written comments
on the program that it could not meet the TCMP policy for beneficial uses of dredged material
because the requirements could add additional costs to a project, resulting in costs greater than
the "Federal standard." The "Federal standard" requires the Corps to undertake projects in the
least costly environmentally acceptable manner. According to the Corps, costs for additional
compliance above the "Federal standard" would have to be passed on to the local sponsor. The
State responded by pointing out that the policy does not require the Corps to use material
beneficially if the costs are significantly greater than traditional practices of disposal and if the
benefits of using the material do not outweigh the additional costs of beneficial use. In addition,
Texas and the Corps have signed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing a procedure that
will phase in federal consistency reviews of Corps dredging projects over time. By phasing in
reviews of projects, beneficial use requirements can be addressed early in the planning process
for upcoming work and funds could be budgeted and/or obtained for the additional costs of using
the material beneficially (see detailed discussions in Part II, Chapter Four, page 4-70, and Part II,
Chapter Six, page 6-25). The State also notes that there are a number of sources of funds that
could be used for beneficial use projects at the Federal (WRDA) and State (TxDOT) levels. Per
subsequent discussions with the Corps, Texas has provided additional clarification that, if after
what amounts to good faith but unsuccessful efforts by the Corp and local sponsor to secure
funding for beneficial use of the material, the Corps may submit a new consistency determination
for the project based on this new circumstance (see detailed discussion in Part II, Chapter Four,
page 4-73). We would also note that it is NOAA's longstanding position that the Federal
consistency provisions in CZMA Section 307 did not contemplate the use of economic efficiency
(e.g., "Federal standard") as a valid justification for not complying with a state's Federally
approved enforceable policies.

    Second, the Corps expressed concerns that it could not meet the beneficial use policy
because the Federal Government does not provide the Corps authority to evaluate some of
project use benefits (such as recreational, flood and storm protection, erosion prevention, and
economic development benefits) in a project analysis as required by the TCMP's policy
(501.14(j)(4)(B)(I)). The state responded that the Corps will not be required to exceed its
authority. The CZMA imposes an obligation on the Corps to comply with the State's
enforceable coastal policies, unless the Corps is specifically prohibited by law from meeting the

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part UII- 11                      August 1996







policies. However, it is not clear whether there is a specific law that prohibits the Corps from
complying with the CZMA when evaluating costs and benefits of dredged material disposal
options. However, if there were such specific prohibitions, then, in these limited cases, the Corps
will have met CZMA federal consistency standard of "consistent to the maximum extent
practicable."

     Third, the Corps expressed concern that the TCMP's dredging and dredged material disposal
policies requiring mitigation for impacts could be interpreted to apply to Corps routine
maintenance dredging of ongoing projects. The Corps claimed that it cannot meet this
requirement because the Federal Government does not allow for mitigation during the course of
routine maintenance. Texas responded by pointing out that the TCMP's mitigation requirements
simply mirror the mitigation requirements in the Clean Water Act ï¿½404(B)(1) guidelines which
currently apply to all Corps operation and maintenance activities per the Corps dredging
regulations.

    Fourth, the Corps also expressed concern that it was being held to a different standard than
private individuals because the TCMP's beneficial use policy only applies to commercially
navigable waterways and not to all dredging activities. Texas responded that the beneficial use
policy, one of several elements making up the State's dredging policy, address those dredging
activities (dredging in commercial waterways) that it felt would generate sufficient volumes of
dredged material necessary for significant beneficial use projects. The State concluded that
private dredging activities would not generate the requisite volumes of material needed for these
beneficial projects.

E.  The Assistant Administrator could delav rnroaram amrroval if it is determined that the
    TCMP's nolicies related to dredging and dredaed material disnosal are not sufficient to meet
    CZMA reauirements.

    The CZMA requires that a state develop policies that are appropriate to the degree of
management needed and sufficiently specific to ensure a sufficient degree of predictability in
decision-making (15 CFR ï¿½923.3(b)). However, concerns were raised in public comments that
the policies related to dredging and dredged material disposal were not sufficiently specific. In
particular, questions were raised regarding the intent and effect of the public and National
Interest Exemption to the dredging policy in 31 TAC 501.14(j)(1)(D).

    Texas maintains that this policy reflects the current provisions in the CWA Section
404(b)(1) and (2) related to dredging. In response to these comments the State provided
additional explanation of the dredging policies including a discussion of the scope, applicability
and effect of the national and public interest exemption in 501.14(j)(1)(D) in Part II Chapter
Four of this document. The policy requires that dredging activities in coastal waters, submerged
lands, critical areas, coastal shore areas and Gulf beaches avoid and minimize impacts to these
resources to the greatest extent practicable. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, if the
State determines that the dredging or placement of dredged material would result in significant
impacts to these resources, the activity will be prohibited. However, if the socio-economic
consequences would be detrimental to the public and national interest, then the State will
consider the costs and benefits of not performing the dredging and, if the costs outweigh the
benefits, the dredging may be authorized. Texas anticipates that this exception will rarely be

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 1I- 12                         August 1996







applied, and that the burden of demonstrating that the provision applies is on the applicant (see
detailed discussion in Part II, Chapter Four, page 4-73).

     A few additional issues were raised in public comments on the Texas Coastal Management
Program/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (see Part VII). NOAA has evaluated the issues
and finds that none of the issues raised warrant delaying or denying approval of the program for
the reasons given in the response to public comments in Part VII. However, NOAA has revised
the FEIS where appropriate to address the issues raised in these comments (see response to
comments in Part VII).











































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part HI- 13                        August 1996







C. DescriDtion of the Affected Environment

1. Phvsical Environment

     Texas has about 367 miles of open Gulf shoreline and 1,100 miles of bay-estuary-lagoon
shoreline. The total surface area of state-owned lands (mean high tide to 10.36 miles offshore) in
the Gulf of Mexico is approximately 2,512,570 acres. The total open-water surface area of the
bay-estuary-lagoon systems at mean high water is 1,532,430 acres (Diener, 1975).

     Seven major and three minor bay-estuary-lagoon systems occur on the coast (figs. 3-10).
The estuarine systems are characterized by diverse climatic and hydrologic features. The climate
along the upper coast in the Beaumont-Port Arthur and Galveston-Houston areas is humid. The
climate along the middle coast from the Bay City-Freeport area to the Corpus Christi area is
subhumid to dry subhumid. Along the lower Texas coast in the Kingsville and Brownsville-
Harlingen areas, the climate is semiarid.

     Two principal wind regimes dominate the coast--persistent southeasterly winds from March
through November, and short-lived but strong northerly winds from December through February
(Fisher et al., 1972, 1973).

    Northers occur in the coastal zone as often as 15 to 20 times per year (Hayes, 1965).
Northers create wind tides that inundate the bay side of barriers and peninsulas, generate high-
velocity ebb currents which transport sand through tidal passes to the Gulf of Mexico, and
transport sand from dune and beach areas into the swash zone. Waves associated with northers
erode parts of the central and lower coastal shoreline and create strong longshore currents that
move sand southward along these shoreline segments (McGowen et al., 1977).

    The Texas coast is struck by hurricanes or tropical storms about once every two years
(McGowen et al., 1977). Simpson and Lawrence (1971) calculated that the probability of
occurrence of a hurricane along a segment of the Texas coast in any one year varied from 7
percent in the Corpus Christi area to 14 percent in the Bay City-Freeport area. During hurricane
passage, shorelines may be eroded from a few tens of feet to several hundred feet in a few hours
(McGowen et al., 1977). Maximum hurricane storm surge heights on the Gulf shoreline can vary
from 4.2 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the High Island area to 12.7 feet above MSL in the
Galveston area (Bodine, 1969).

    Astronomical tidal variations in Texas estuaries are small compared with those of estuaries
of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts; they range in the northwest Gulf of Mexico during maximum
declination of the moon to about 2.6 feet and at minimum declination, about 0.7 feet (Ward et al.,
1980). Meteorological events are more important than astronomical tides in affecting estuaries,
as they alternately expose and flood the greatest area of tidal flat and marsh (Collier and
Hedgpeth, 1950).

    The most noticeable fluctuations in bay levels are caused by direction and force of the wind
or wind tides (White and Calnan, 1990). The amount of open-bay fetch and the direction of wind
tides control the effectiveness of wind-tidal activity (Brown et al., 1976). For example, broad
fetch, as in Trinity Bay and the western arm of Matagorda Bay, and persistent southeast winds

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 14                     August 1996







               aligned with the axis of the bay result in high wind tides that may build tide heights 2 to 3 feet
is above normal (Holliday, 1973).

               2. Natural Resources

                a. Waters of the Open Gulf of Mexico

                   Waters on the inner continental shelf of the western Gulf of Mexico are characterized by
               seasonably variable temperatures and salinities. Average surface temperatures range from 88ï¿½F
              to 57ï¿½F (Hedgpeth, 1953). Bottom water temperatures on the upper coast range from 54ï¿½F to
               59ï¿½F in the winter to 84ï¿½F in the summer. Bottom water temperatures on the lower or south
              Texas coast range from 59ï¿½F in the winter to 82ï¿½F in the summer (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987).

                   Large freshwater discharges of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers influence the
              hydrography of the northwestern Gulf shelf. The influence is especially prominent in reducing
              salinities of inner shelf waters as far west as Galveston (Boesch and Rabalais, 1987).
              Occasionally during the late spring this influence may extend down the Texas coast (Boesch and
              Rabalais, 1987). Hypoxia in bottom waters is a summer phenomenon off Louisiana and is
              known to occasionally extend at least to Freeport, Texas (Harper et al., 1981). Average salinity
              of the Gulf is 36 ppt (Hedgpeth, 1953).

                   Tidal ranges along the Gulf shoreline vary from 2.6 ft in the Sabine Pass area to 1.3 ft near
              Brazos Santiago Pass in the Brownsville-Harlingen area (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978).
              Wave heights on both the upper and lower coasts range between 2.5 and 3.5 feet (U.S. Army
              Corps of Engineers, 1956a and 1956b). Net longshore sediment transport is southwesterly on the
              upper coast (Fisher et al., 1973) and northerly on the lower coast (Brown et al., 1980). In the
              Kingsville area, southwestward and northward longshore currents converge near latitude 27ï¿½N
              (Brown et al., 1977).

                   Shelf bathymetry near the Gulf shoreline is characterized by a relatively steep slope and
              ranges from approximately 30 feet/mile in the Brownsville area to 6 feet/mile in the Sabine Pass
              area (White et al., 1986 and 1987). At approximately 10 miles offshore, the slope decreases to
              about 9 to 12 feet/mile in the Brownsville area to I foot/mile in the Sabine Pass area. Maximum
              inner-shelf depths range from 96 feet in the Brownsville area to 40 feet in the Sabine Pass area.

                   The invertebrate fauna of the northwestern Gulf is generally considered an extension of the
              warm temperate Carolinian zoogeographic province that extends from Cape Hatteras, North
              Carolina, to Cape Kennedy, Florida (Pulley, 1953; Boesch and Rabalais, 1987). The South
              Texas invertebrate fauna has been described as Texas Transitional, with fauna typical of both
              tropical Caribbean areas and temperate western Atlantic areas (Pulley, 1953). The fauna of the
              outer shelf of the northwestern Gulf has more tropical affinities than the warm, temperate inner
              shelf.

                   The fish fauna of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico may be divided into temperate and
              tropical components, with a vague dividing line (Hoese and Moore, 1977). Some ecological
              factors affecting distribution include salinity, primary productivity, and substrate type. The
              inshore Gulf and estuarine habitats share a common fauna, but there are certain species which are

              Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 15                     August 1996







largely restricted to certain habitats. Natural rocky substrates are absent from the inshore area,
except for some very small areas off Port Mansfield (7ï¿½2-Fathom Reef). However, piers, jetties,
and bulkheads provide a suitable habitat for such species as sheepshead, crested blennies, hairy
blennies, frillfin gobies, and belted sand bass (Hoese and Moore, 1977). In the shallow Gulf, the
surf zone, with its open, sandy bottom, characteristically contains the Gulf whiting and Atlantic
threadfin (Hoese and Moore, 1977). Outside this zone, sediments become muddier, and
characteristic fish are the Atlantic croaker, spot, drum, silver sea trout, southern kingfish, and
Atlantic threadfin.

     Many of the inshore fishes are estuarine-dependent and spend part or all of their lives in
estuaries. Almost three-fourths of the fisheries harvest from the Gulf of Mexico consists of
species dependent on estuaries or wetlands (NOAA, 1990). For example, on a Gulf-wide basis,
inshore shrimp yields are related directly to availability of estuarine intertidal vegetation (Turner,
1977). A typical estuarine-dependent species spawns in the Gulf of Mexico, and the larvae are
then carried towards shore by currents. The young fish enter the estuaries and remain there,
reaching maturity in about one year. They may remain in the estuary, migrate to sea to spawn, or
migrate from the shallow estuaries to spend the rest of their lives in the deeper Gulf of Mexico
(Hoese and Moore, 1977). Estuary-related species of importance include menhaden, shrimps,
oyster, crabs, and sciaenids.

 b. Waters Under Tidal Influence

     Seven major estuarine systems with a total water surface area of 1,541,301 acres
(Armstrong, 1987) occur on the Texas coast: the Sabine-Neches, Galveston, Matagorda-Lavaca,
San Antonio, Copano-Aransas, Corpus Christi-Nueces, and Laguna Madre-Baffin (figs. 2-9).
Three minor riverine estuaries are also found on the coast: the Brazos, San Bernard, and Rio
Grande. Sedimentation has mostly filled these estuaries, and the rivers that fed them now empty
directly into the Gulf of Mexico.

    There is very little temperature variation spatially within an estuary, either horizontally or
vertically (Armstrong, 1987). For the most part, water temperatures follow air temperatures.
Average annual salinities range from 2.3 ppt in Sabine Lake to 36.2 ppt in Laguna Madre
(Armstrong, 1987). Seasonal salinity variations reflect freshwater inflows and vary considerably
both within and between estuaries.

    Water exchange in estuaries is due to astronomical tides, winds, barometric pressure, and
density stratification (Armstrong, 1987). Of these influences, winds are the most important and
can produce wind tides, which over long periods can account for substantial exchange of water
between the Gulf and estuaries. The amount of open-bay fetch and the direction of wind tides
control the effectiveness of wind-tidal activity (Brown et al., 1976).

    Average depths in the estuaries at mean low water range from 0.7 feet in Cayo del Infemillo
in the Baffin Bay system to 14.5 feet in Offatts Bayou in the Galveston Bay system (Diener,
1975). Average depths of the larger bay-estuary-lagoon systems range from 2.8 feet in upper
Laguna Madre to 10.5 feet in Corpus Christi Bay. Many of the bays are shallow, with average
depths of less than 4 feet. Maximum depths occur in the navigation channels and near the tidal
passes.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 16                      August 1996







     Temperature, salinity, water depth, and sediment type are perhaps the most important
environmental parameters affecting distributions of fish species. Low-salinity bay communities
are dominated by fish species such as croaker, spot, sand trout, anchovies, and mullet. Low-
salinity to almost freshwater areas of the upper coast are characterized by such species as gar,
killifish, mullet, and blue catfish. In areas receiving adequate fresh water, menhaden are
dominant (Hoese and Moore, 1977). The hypersaline bays and lagoons of south Texas, such as
Baffin Bay and Laguna Madre, contain no distinctive species, and only a greatly reduced
assemblage found in lower salinities, such as mullet, black drum, redfish, and speckled trout.

 c. Submerged Lands

     Coastal submerged lands are one of the most extensive habitats in any coastal system. In
Texas, the total area of submerged land habitat is approximately 6,250 mi2 or 4,000,000 acres.
These areas are open systems that interact strongly with Gulf of Mexico and bay waters, with
marshes and tidal flats on the periphery of the bay-estuary-lagoon system, and with riverine
systems where they enter the estuary. Bay-estuary-lagoon sediment types are principally sand,
mud (silt and clay), and gravel (composed primarily of shell material). The distribution of these
different textural components follows a systematic trend for the larger bay systems, where muds
characterize the deeper bay centers and sand the shallower bay margins (White and Calnan,
1990). The distribution is in part a reflection of wave and current energy, which is related to
water depth. Inorganic bottom sediments are mostly composed of quartz, feldspar, and clay
minerals. Oolites and coated grains are among the constituents of sediments in Baffin Bay along
the south Texas coast (Frishman, 1969).

    Sediments of the inner shelf span three textural ranges--gravel, sand, and mud. The gravel-
sized fraction, which is minor, is composed predominantly of shell, but includes some rock
fragments (Morton and Winker, 1979). Sand-sized sediments occupy the nearshore zone along
the beach and shoreface and extend variable distances offshore. Muddy fine sands generally lie
seaward of the nearshore sand zone in a narrow band that roughly parallels the sand trend. Sandy
muds generally follow a similar pattern parallel to the coast and seaward of the muddy sand
zone. Mud is deposited along much of the seaward perimeter of submerged lands.

    The food web of the bottom habitat is based on detritus. Fungi and bacteria, which comprise
the benthic decomposer organisms, are capable of breaking down the organic detritus.
Protozoans and other organisms comprising the microfauna (2/1000 in. in size) consume the
bacteria, and these are, in turn, consumed by the diverse meiofauna, such as nematodes,
copepods, and juvenile stages of the larger macrofauna. Macrofauna are divided into two groups,
the epifauna, or those species living on the surface of bottom sediments, and the infauna, which
may live in tubes or burrow into the sediments to depths up to 8 inches. Typically, the highest
concentrations of organisms are in the top one to two inches. Benthic macrofauna are polychaete
annelid worms, clams, snails and other mollusks, and many species of crabs and other smaller
crustaceans. Many ecologic parameters affect the distribution of benthic macrofauna, including
salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, organic content, seagrass distribution,
interspecific competition, predation, vagility, sedimentation rates, and sediment characteristics.
Biological interactions between macrofauna and predation by large, motile predators are also
important processes controlling benthic community structure. Numerous fishes, such as


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part m- 17                        August 1996







croakers, drum, spot, mullet, and shrimp forage on benthic organisms. Diving birds also can
reach the benthos to consume small mollusks and other organisms.

 d. Coastal Wetlands

     Saltmarsh - Typical species in the saltmarsh community (a marsh is a frequently or
continually inundated wetland characterized by emergent herbaceous vegetation) include smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltwort (Batis maritima), glasswort (Salicornia virginica and S.
bigelovii), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginica), sea ox-eye
(Borrichia frutescens), and salt-marsh bulrush (Scirpus maritimus). Black mangroves (Avicennia
germinans) are significant components of salt marsh systems in some areas along the central and
south Texas coast. Salt marshes have their broadest distribution south of the Galveston Bay area,
where they are common on the bayward side of barrier islands and peninsulas and along the
mainland shores of narrow bays such as West Galveston Bay. Although salt marshes occur on
bay-head deltas, the communities change rather rapidly to brackish, intermediate, and fresh
marshes up the river valleys.

     Brackish marsh - The brackish-marsh community is transitional between salt marshes and
fresh marshes. Among the dominant species in topographically higher areas are marshhay
cordgrass (Spartina patens), Gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae), saltgrass, salt-marsh bulrush
(Scirpus maritimus) and sea ox-eye. Brackish marshes are the most extensive wetland
communities in the Galveston Bay system (White and Paine, 1992). They are widely distributed
along the lower reaches of the Trinity River delta, inland from West Galveston Bay, in the inland
system south of the Brazos River, and along much of the lower reaches of the Lavaca and
Guadalupe river valleys.

    An intermediate marsh assemblage occurs on the upper coast above Galveston Bay where
salinities are generally between those found in the fresh and brackish marsh assemblages.
Species typical of this environment include seashore paspalum (Paspalum vaginatum), marshhay
cordgrass, Olney bulrush, cattail (Typha sp.), and California bulrush.

    Fresh marsh - Environments in which fresh marshes occur are generally beyond the limits of
saltwater flooding, except perhaps locally during hurricanes. The freshwater influence from
rivers, precipitation, runoff, and groundwater is sufficient to maintain a fresher-water vegetation
assemblage consisting of such species as cattail, California bulrush, three-square bulrush
(Scirpus americanus), water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), spiney aster (Aster spinosus),
rattlebush (Sesbania drummondii), alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and pickerel
weed (Pontederia cordata). Fresh marshes occur inland along river or fluvial systems and in
upland basins, both on the mainland and on barrier islands. Inland from the chenier plain and
upstream along the river valleys of the Neches, Trinity, San Jacinto, Colorado, Lavaca,
Guadalupe, and San Antonio rivers, salinities decrease and fresh marshes intergrade with and
replace brackish marshes.

    Swamps and bottomland hardwoods - Swamps are most commonly defined as woodlands or
forested areas that contain saturated soils or are inundated by water during much of the year. In
Texas, these are areas in which bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nvssa
aquatica) occur in association with other species of trees such as sweetgum (Liquidambar

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 18                    August 1996







stvraciflua) and willows (Salix spp.). Swamps occur principally in the entrenched valleys of the
Sabine, Neches, and Trinity rivers. The swamps grade at slightly higher elevations into river
bottomland hardwood forest or streamside woodland. Entrenched and nonentrenched river
valleys to the south are dominated by drier woodlands or forested areas.

 e. Submerged Aauatic Vegetation

     Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) of the bay-estuary-lagoon system occurs in relatively
shallow (less than 6 feet) subtidal areas. Five marine spermatophytes, including shoalgrass
(Halodule wrightii), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum),
clovergrass (Halophila engelmannii), and manatee grass (Svringodium filiformis) occur on the
Texas Gulf Coast. However, only turtlegrass, widgeongrass, and shoalgrass have been reported
on the central and northern coast. Species of SAV that occur in river deltas and do not tolerate
long-term salinities above 6 ppt include Najas sp. and Vallisneria sp. (Zimmerman et al., 1990).

 f. Tidal Sand or Mud Flats

     Tidal sand flats and mud flats are ecologically important areas of the coast and a vital part of
estuarine food chains. They are defined as silt and clay or sand substrates that usually occur in
the intertidal zone and are regularly exposed and flooded by tides. In contrast to wetland
habitats, mud flat and sand flat vegetation is minimal due to unstable sediments. Algal mats
often occur on sand flats.'

    Mud flats and sand flats are the feeding grounds for coastal shorebirds, fish, and many
invertebrates. Detritus and plankton collect on the flats and are eaten by primary consumers,
which in turn are prey for higher levels of the food chain. Overall, sand flats are more abundant
than mud flats. Extensive sandflats occur in the Laguna Madre area of South Texas, whereas
mud flats are common on the upper coast in the Houston/Galveston and Beaumont/Port Arthur
areas. Texas contains more tidal flats than any other state, and the Laguna Madre estuary
contains 14 percent of the nation's tidal flats (Field et al., 1991).

 g. Oyster Reefs

    Extensive reefs of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica are present in many bays and
estuaries. Oysters and oyster reefs are not only ecologically important, possessing all the
ecological characteristics of special aquatic sites as defined in Section 230.3 of the EPA
404(b)(1) Guidelines, but are also harvested commercially.

    Reefs and unconsolidated shelly sediments comprise a total of 36.8 mi2 of the Galveston
Bay system surveyed in 1991 (Powell, 1993). The surveyed area includes the majority of West
Bay, East Bay, Trinity Bay, and Galveston Bay. Of the surveyed area, about 60.3 percent is in
Galveston, East, and Trinity bays. The remaining 39.7 percent is in West Bay and areas in
Galveston Bay near Pelican Island. Powell (1993) found that the oyster reefs of the Galveston
Bay system can be divided into naturally occurring reef that has existed over historic time and
reef that has originated through man's influence.

h. Hard Substrate Reefs

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 19                       August 1996







     The only known sedimentary bank in the nearshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico off Texas is
Seven and One-Half Fathom Reef. The reef is located approximately two miles offshore Padre
Island in 45 feet of water (Tunnell, 1970) and measures approximately 1,155 feet along its
northwest to southeast length. The reef provides habitat for a diverse fauna composed of a
mixture of temperate Atlantic and tropical Caribbean organisms. The reef fauna also resembles
fouling communities on western Gulf of Mexico coastal jetties, especially the submerged ends of
jetties on the lower Texas coast (Felder and Chaney, 1979).

     Serpulid reefs composed of calcareous tubes of live and dead serpulid polychaetes are found
in the Baffin-Alazan bay system, primarily along bay margins, and across the mouths of Baffm-
Alazan bay and Baffin Bay and Laguna Madre. Serpulid reefs provide habitat for numerous
species of crustaceans, mollusks, and polychaetes.

 i. Coastal Shore Areas

     Coastal shore areas are ecologically connected to their adjacent waterways, and any human
modifications to these areas could have an impact on habitat and water quality. These areas
function primarily as buffers protecting upland habitats from erosion and storm damage, and
adjacent marshes and waterways from water-quality problems (Castelle et al., 1992).
Unstabilized shorelines are the clay bluffs, sandy slopes, and sand and shell beaches whose
morphology is controlled by regional geology and local coastal processes. The major bay
systems have different proportions of shoreline types that contribute to differences in land loss
rates between bays. Morton and Paine (1990) calculated that 27 percent of the shorelines of
major Texas bays were bluffs and 13 percent sand and shell. Sixty percent of the shorelines were
marsh. The Galveston, Matagorda, San Antonio, Copano, and Corpus Christi bay systems lost
fringing land at gross rates of about 287 acres/year between 1930 and 1982, or a total of 14,924
acres (Morton and Paine, 1990). Altered sediment supply and current patterns result in changes
to these natural shorelines.

    A variety of birds occurs on bayshores, and few are restricted to one particular habitat
(Britton and Morton, 1989). Cranes, rails, coots, gallinules, and other groups can be found on
bay shorelines and in fringing marshes. Fiddler crabs (Lca spp.) are conspicuous crustaceans
along bay-estuary-lagoon shorelines. These small crabs produce burrows that occur along almost
every bayshore from the tide line to as much as 3 feet above sea level. The hermit crab
(Clibanarius vittatus) also inhabits shore areas.

 j. Gulf Beaches

    Texas beaches not only serve as important recreational areas but also function as protection
for landward structures during storms and periods of high wave and tidal activity. The beach is a
dynamic habitat, subject to a variety of environmental influences such as wind and wave action,
salt spray, high temperature, and moisture stress.

    Overall, maintenance of the beach dune system is principally a function of the sediment
supply to the system. Where this supply has been reduced or interfered with, erosion is likely to
occur. Moreover, reduced sediment supply can generally result in loss of dunes and consequent
loss of protection to upland areas provided by the dune system.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part Il- 20                     August 1996







     Relatively few animals and plants have adapted to these harsh conditions of the beach/dune
system. The supralittoral zone or backshore begins at the base of the dunes and extends to the
high tide line. The burrowing ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata) is one of the most conspicuous
inhabitants of this area. Various species of tiger beetles (Cincidela spp.) may also occur in this
area. Backshore flora is characterized by fleshy succulents, a few grasses, and prostrate creeping
vines. The sea purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) can be found on the backshore and foredune
slopes, along with bitter panicum (Panicum amarum) and the railroad vine (Ipomoea pes-caprae).

 k. Critical Dune Areas

     Sand dunes help prevent loss of life and property by absorbing the impact of storm surge
and high waves and by stopping or delaying the intrusion of water inland. They store sand that
slows shoreline erosion and replenishes eroded beaches after storms. They enhance the beauty of
the coast and serve unique biological and ecological functions.

     The most conspicuous dune crest plant is the sea oat (LJniola paniculata). Sea oats occur
along the entire coast, ranging from the backshore to the central vegetated flat of the barrier
islands (Britton and Morton, 1989). Other plants occurring on the exposed dune slopes and
crests include bitter panicum, beach tea (Croton punctatus), camphor daisy (Machaeranthera
phyllocephala), seacoast bluestem (SchizachYrium scoparium), and the railroad vine. Floral
diversity is generally higher on the leeward dune slopes than on the windward side. Many
insects occur in the dune vegetation, including beach tiger beetles, horseflies (Tabanus spp.), and
deer flies (Chrysops spp.). Larger ghost crabs and the red land crab (Gecarcinus lateralis) burrow
into the dunes.

 1. Coastal Hazard Areas

    Coastal hazard areas occur along and adjacent to the Texas Gulf and bay coastline. These
areas are typically subjected to flooding from streams and storm-tidal surges, or are impacted by
coastal erosion and subsidence. The results are substantial physical and monetary losses, and the
potential for the loss of lives. The causes of the hazards to the Texas coast are the constant
forces exerted by waves, winds, and currents upon the unstable coastal natural resources that
make up the shores. During storms, these forces are intensified and can cause significant
changes in the beaches, dunes, floodplains, washover areas, and inlets. Hazard area property is
both publicly and privately owned and is used by a great number of visitors. In addition,
shoreline erosion contributes to the direct physical destruction of ecologically important coastal
natural resources and often impairs aquatic habitat by increasing turbidity.

    A number of human activities may aggravate the destructive power of the storm-tidal surge
and freshwater flooding. Human alteration of coastal hazard areas may result in the formation of
new washover channels in adjacent low areas, increased shoreline erosion from the diversion of
floodwaters, and increased exposure of new areas to tidal surge and flooding, and may impede
the flow of floodwaters.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 21                     August 1996







 m. Special Hazard Areas

     Special hazard areas are low-lying coastal areas prone to storm-surge tidal flooding or
freshwater flooding. Specifically, they include the floodplains that are susceptible to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (inundated by a 100-year flood), and bay
and Gulf shores that are exposed to high-velocity wave action from storms or prone to severe
flood-related erosion. Special hazard areas are important to the coastal ecosystem because they
generally receive the brunt of storms, act as natural surface-water detention systems, and are
natural filters for runoff from upland areas.

     Floodplains contain many different habitats and zones defined by a moisture gradient
including the constantly inundated channels and lakes, overflow riverine wetlands, and dry
uplands that are infrequently inundated. Floodplains support extensive fish populations of both
sport and commercial fisheries. The makeup of fish populations and characteristics of the
fisheries are dependent upon water regimes, size of the river system, proximity to estuarine
waters, physical and chemical characteristics of the water, and geographic location of the river
basin (Lambou, 1989). Floodplains and associated bottomland hardwoods also provide food,
cover, and nesting sites for birds and other wildlife.

 n. Critical Erosion Areas

     Critical erosion areas are those Gulf and bay shorelines that are undergoing erosion and are
determined to be critical by using a series of criteria developed by the General Land Office in
coordination with state and Federal agencies and local governments. Critical erosion areas have
been designated in the Coastwide Erosion Response Plan available from the General Land
Office.

 o. Coastal Barriers

    Coastal barriers stretch 367 miles along the Texas shoreline, separating the Gulf of Mexico
from the mainland (McGowen et al., 1977). Coastal barriers can include coastal natural
resources that provide sediment utilized in coastal processes and provide food and/or habitat for
numerous faunal species. In general, the landward boundaries of coastal barriers are distinct at
the shoreline of bays and estuaries. However, for the deltaic headland and chenier plain features,
the landward limit can be the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Coastal barriers are separated from
each other by natural and man-made tidal passes.

    Coastal barriers act as important buffers against coastal storms, protecting the extensive
wetlands, other CNRAs, and the mainland lying behind the coastal barriers from erosion,
flooding, and destruction.

    Coastal barrier environments tend to be fairly severe. Fresh water is limited to ephemeral
ponds. Salt spray is common with any onshore wind, and saltwater flooding occurs periodically
(Shew et al., 1981). Species adapted to these relatively harsh conditions are limited in diversity
and numbers. Floral and faunal components of coastal barriers have generally been described
under other CNRAs, including coastal wetlands, tidal sand and mud flats, and critical dune areas.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part HI- 22                        August 1996







 p. Coastal Historic Areas

     A wide range of both prehistoric and historic sites exists on the coastal plain and public
submerged land of Texas. State Archaeological Landmarks are administered by the Texas
Historical Commission. Historic sites include forts, shipwrecks, plantations, lighthouses, depots,
battlefields, cemeteries, towns, ranches, and homesteads. The Texas Archaeological Research
Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin currently lists over 3,200 recorded archaeological
sites within the 19 coastal counties.

 q. Coastal Preserves

     Parks are established for various recreational uses and frequently exhibit a combination of
uses including scenic, historic, aesthetic, flood control, habitat preservation, and education, as
well as typical outdoor recreational activities like hiking, camping, boating, fishing, and aesthetic
benefits.

     Coastal wildlife management areas (WMAs) were acquired and are being developed,
maintained, operated and managed, along biological lines, for the wildlife and fish which utilize
these areas. WMAs may be used for wildlife research under controlled conditions,
demonstration of wildlife management practices, protection of wildlife species and habitats,
outdoor classrooms, sources of broodstock, and multi-resource public use opportunities.

    The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) currently maintains 13 parks and three
fishing piers that total 16,593 acres in the 19 coastal counties. These range in size from the 149-
acre Bryan Lake State Park to the 18,000-acre Sea Rim State Park. The three state fishing piers
are from 1.8 to 7 acres in size. The TPWD currently manages 10 wildlife management areas in
the 19 coastal counties that total 51,436 acres. These range in size from the 37-acre Redhead
Pond to the 43,900-acre Matagorda Island WMA.

    The diversity of habitat and contiguous undeveloped acreage is the greatest resource within
the WMA system. Numerous habitat types can be found within the WMA system. Coastal
wetlands on the lower coast are typified by salt marshes on the bay side of the barrier islands,
large, open saline bays and lagoons, and a narrow belt of mainland salt marshes backed by
relatively unspoiled coastal prairie which offers, during periods of rainfall, many food-rich
freshwater ponds and swales. A portion of this area is the winter home of the endangered
whooping crane, Grus americana and thousands of sandhill cranes, Grus canadensis, which
utilize tall grass coastal prairie and fallow agricultural fields.

    Texas is one of the most significant waterfowl wintering regions in North America. In
recent years, 3 to 5 million waterfowl annually have wintered in Texas. This represents about 50
percent of all waterfowl found in the Central Flyway in winter. Broad expanses of shallow flats,
including sand and algal flats, as well as submerged aquatic vegetation, are important to ducks
such as widgeon, pintail, redhead, gadwall, scaup, and canvasback. Approximately 650,000
(1983-85) redhead ducks, or about 70 percent of all redheads in North America winter in the
Laguna Madre (Moulton, 1990). Just as important is the recent recognition of the use of these
areas by migrant neotropical birds.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 1U- 23                         August 1996







     Many endangered vertebrate species make use of these varied natural resources. These
include Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), the Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis),         O
the Attwaters prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucoephalus), and the jaguarundi (Felis yagouaroundi). Many more threatened and marginal
species are offered protection by the WMA system. The TPWD is currently analyzing existing
acreage and strategies for future acquisition.

     The principal goal of the Texas Coastal Preserve Program is to ensure that desirable coastal
natural resources are perpetuated through cooperative actions of the GLO, TPWD, and
supporting private and public organizations. Recognizing the diversity of coastal natural
resources and the breadth of public coastal concerns, the cooperating groups will develop a
preserve program that: (1) protects fragile biological communities, including important colonial
bird nesting sites; (2) protects unique coastal areas; (3) explores methods for recognizing
preservation and enhancement opportunities; and (4) actively involves all concerned and
knowledgeable persons and organizations. There are currently four coastal preserves: Armand
Bayou and Christmas Bay in the Galveston Bay system; Welder Flats in the San Antonio Bay
system; and South Bay, the southernmost extension of the lower Laguna Madre.

    The boundaries of the Armand Bayou Coastal Preserve extend from the confluence of
Armand Bayou with Clear Lake, upstream to the limit of tidal influence. Armand Bayou is an
open system which receives substantial inputs of fresh water, sediment, and nutrients from the
surrounding upland areas and tributaries (McFarlane, 1991a). The 60-square-mile watershed is
surrounded by diverse environments ranging from bottomland hardwoods and coastal prairies to
residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Subsidence in the watershed has virtually
eliminated the coastal marshes, extended the zone of tidal influence, and changed the lower reach
of the bayou from a fresh to a brackish water environment.

    Christmas Bay, a small secondary bay at the southwestern extreme of the Galveston Bay
system, is an important finfish and shellfish nursery area. Seagrasses are probably the most
valuable and productive habitats in the bay. Four seagrass species occur in the bay; however,
only widgeongrass is found elsewhere in the Galveston Bay system. The Brazoria National
Wildlife Refuge is adjacent to Christmas Bay and has been a major, positive influence on the
health and maintenance of the Christmas Bay ecosystem (McFarlane, 1991b).

    Welder Flats is located on the eastern shore of middle San Antonio Bay. The characteristic
mid-bay wetlands of Welder Flats consist of saltwater marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation,
unvegetated sand and mud flats, and shallow saltwater ponds and lagoons (Pulich and Hinson,
1990). Because of its location near the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Welder Flats plays an
integral role in bay waterfowl and wading bird ecology, including providing wintering habitat for
the endangered whooping crane.

    South Bay, a semi-enclosed estuarine system at the southernmost tip of Texas, supports a
wide variety of habitat types, including seagrasses, oyster reefs, black mangroves and other salt
marsh species, and tidal sand and mud flats. South Bay is a highly productive nursery area for
shrimp and finfish and provides excellent feeding, resting and overwintering habitat for
numerous species of indigenous and migratory bird species.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II- 24                      August 1996







           3. Human Environment/Environmental Oualitv

is ~~~a. Mineral Exr)loration and Related Activities

                Energy is the number-one industry in Texas. Despite setbacks in the late 1 980s and early
           1 990s, energy accounted for 22 percent of the total net state revenue and 54 percent of state tax
           revenue in March 1993, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Sharp, 1993).

                Texas contains 26 percent of the proven natural gas reserves in the lower 48 states, and the
           majority of those reserves lie offshore or along the coastal plain (Department of Energy, 1990).
           Texas is promoting the use of natural gas resource as an alternative fuel to revitalize the economy
           and diminish dependence on foreign oil. Even with diversification of the State's economy, the oil
           and gas industry, particularly exploration and production in the coastal zone, will continue to be
           of regional and national benefit in serving our nation's energy needs. In addition to producing
           one-third of the nation's natural gas, Texas produces one-fourth of the nation's oil, and a
           significant amount of the oil production occurs in the coastal zone.

               Exploration, production, and service and support facilities include drilling and production
           platforms, tank farms, gas processing plants, dredged access channels, pipelines and pipeline
           landfalls, pipe coating and storage yards, platform-fabrication yards, separation facilities, service
           bases, and terminals. Texas currently houses two Strategic Petroleum Reserve sites and is being
           considered for a I100-million-barrel expansion of oil in storage in the current facilities. The
           expansion and operation of these storage facilities could impact the coastal zone.

0            ~~~~Existing active facilities have sufficient capacity to support most of the projected level of
           future exploration and production in the coastal zone. Reactivation of inactive facilities can
           provide additional capacity; however, construction of new facilities will continue. Moreover,
           deeper and wider ports and channels may be proposed in response to the trend toward deeper
           water exploration and production of oil and gas.

               Construction of oil and gas exploration and production facilities can disturb or destroy
           wetlands, seagrass communities, oyster reefs, and other surface resources. Filling, channel
           dredging, and other site preparation activities for construction of facilities in shallow bays and
           estuaries and on nearby shores may affect water quality, benthic communities, archaeological
           resources, and fishery resources. Resuspension of bottom sediments often results from facility
           construction and removal. Pipelines are often trenched for greater stability and protection from
          mechanical damage. According to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) Impact Statement
           for Gulf of Mexico Sales 139 and 141, 3,200 to 8,300 cubic meters of sediment are displaced per
          kilometer of pipeline.

               Oil and gas exploration and production operations also may cause surface damage. Spills of
          crude oil and other contaminants, detonation of explosives for geophysical exploration,
          propwashing from support vessels, and tracks from land vehicles can have adverse effects on
          water quality, benthic communities, archaeological resources, and fishery resources. These
          operations also generate solid and liquid wastes. Common waste materials include debris, drill
0       ~~~cuttings, drilling fiuds, and wastewater, particularly produced water or brine. Produced waters
          make up 98 percent of all oil and gas exploration and production wastes, and 98 percent of these

          Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 25                       August 1996







produced waters are injected underground in wells permitted by the RRC. In the coastal zone,
the discharge of brine to surface waters, either directly or by overland flow, is common.

     The chronic exposure of estuarine habitats to brine pollution is potentially more damaging
than accidental oil spills. Produced waters typically contain high levels of dissolved salts, with
salinities ranging from 20 to 180 ppt, versus seawater at 35 ppt. Elevated concentrations of trace
metals and dispersed and soluble petroleum hydrocarbons are also present. Concentrations of
radium-226 in brines can exceed regulatory criteria established for other industries, yet little is
known of its environmental effects (Roach and Spencer, 1992).

 b. Federal Outer Continental Shelf Activities

     Oil and gas exploration and production activities on Federal lands on the Outer Continental
Shelf are managed by the MMS of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). These activities
have a major impact on the Texas coastal zone. The western and central portions of the Gulf of
Mexico are characterized by the MMS, in its draft Comprehensive Program 1992-1997, as the
mainstays of the OCS oil and gas operation and production efforts for the next five to ten years.
The MMS predicts that 800 to I1000 new wells will be drilled in these parts of the Gulf each year
because of the success rates in exploration and development and the potential in unexplored
areas.

    The central and western Gulf region has one of the highest concentrations of oil and gas
activity in the world, and this is accompanied by extensive development of onshore service and
support facilities. The MMS has summarized the existing OCS-related onshore facilities by
coastal subarea (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990). It concludes that the onshore service,
support and hydrocarbon-processing facilities already in existence will be sufficient for
exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas projected to result from prior,
proposed, and future sales of all Gulf of Mexico OCS lands.

    Those new facilities projected for the Western Planning Area are widely distributed
throughout the Texas Gulf Coast. Prior lease sales are predicted to account. for 121 km of
onshore pipe and several new pipeline landfalls. In addition, the MMvS states that the Western
Planning Area will be the potential location for one new pipe yard and three new terminals.

    Of the 3 8 pipelines originating from either state or outer continental shelf waters along the
Texas coast, 16 (42 percent) make landfall in the four-county area surrounding Galveston Bay.
Gas pipelines in these areas range in diameter from 6 inches to 36 inches; oil pipelines are 4
inches to 14 inches in diameter.

    The MMvS projects that four new oil pipelines will make landfall along the Texas coast, in
Jefferson County (High Island), Matagorda County (Matagorda Peninsula), Calhoun County
(Matagorda Island), and Nueces County (Mustang Island). These pipelines will be installed to
connect new production platforms to existing pipelines or central platform facilities.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11- 26                        August 1996







 c. Chemical and Petrochemical Manufacturing and Waste Manaoement

     The petroleum refining and petrochemical industries constitute a major part of the
manufacturing sector of the Gulf Coast region. Of the region's top ten manufacturing companies
in terms of employment, four are petroleum refineries, one is an oil and gas field supply
company, and two are petrochemical companies. The first chemical plant established by a major
U.S. company in the Gulf Coast area was the Dow plant in Freeport, built in 1938. The
environment along the Gulf Coast proved ideal for petrochemical production, with a warm
climate and availability of cheap electricity, seawater, and chemical feedstocks. The
petrochemical companies grew as consumer demand for petrochemical products increased. The
chemical and petrochemical manufacturing sector represents a major component of
manufacturing in Texas. The chemical industry results in the employment of 450,000 Texans,
with a total annual payroll of $15 billion. The chemical industry has invested more than $40
billion in Texas facilities and generates more than one-quarter of the State's manufacturing value
added. In recent years, this manufacturing sector has demonstrated increasing concern for the
environmental consequences of its operations, instituting programs to reduce waste generation
and impacts on coastal resources.

    Most of the existing chemical and petrochemical manufacturing infr-astructure is located in
the Galveston Bay area. It has been estimated that 45 percent of al U.S. petrochemical
production is in the area around Houston. Of 31 oil refineries on the Texas coast, 12 (39 percent)
are located in the four counties surrounding Galveston Bay. This is approximately 17 percent of
the total oil refinery design capacity in the Gulf of Mexico. Of the 74 gas processing plants on
the Texas coast, 22 (30 percent) are in the Galveston Bay area, and 32 percent of the gas
processing plant design capacity is in that area.

    In 1994, 1,200 Texas manufacturers reported the release or disposal of 223 million total
pounds of toxic chemicals. Of this amount, 40 percent was managed in permitted underground
injection wells, with the remaining 60 percent managed via water discharges, air emissions, and
land disposal. Overall, the trend is toward reduction in the generation and release of toxic
chemicals in the chemical and petrochemical industries. Results of the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) found that from 1993 to 1994, Texas facilities had a 1.7 percent reduction in the release
and disposal of on-site TRI-listed chemicals. The significant efforts of CLEAN INDUSTRIES
2000 members accounted for a 3 percent reduction in toxic chemicals. CLEAN INDUSTRIES
2000 is a TNRCC voluntary waste reduction program designed to reduce industrial pollution.
Members voluntarily pledge to reduce the amount of toxic chemicals released and disposed of or
the amount of hazardous waste generated by 50 percent by the year 2000. From 1993 to 1994,
CLEAN INDUSTRIES 2000 members accounted for 14 of the top 20 TRI reduction facilities in
Texas.

    Government and industry use several methods to reduce or store hazardous waste.
Management methods include land filling, land farming, incineration, chemical treatment,
discharging, deep-well injection, and recycling. Many hazardous wastes can be treated to render
them nonhazardous, as through neutralization, or can be recycled to recover usable constituents,
as through solvent recovery or metal reclamation.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11- 27                       August 1996







     Proper management of toxic chemical wastes -- including reducing the total production of
such wastes -- will lessen the potential for environmental degradation to bays, estuaries,
wetlands, and other coastal natural resources. Current efforts to improve waste management are
expected to continue. These efforts are particularly essential within the coastal zone where the
chemical and petrochemical manufacturing capacity is concentrated.

 d. Municinal and Industrial Wastewater

     According to the TNRCC, there were 831 permitted municipal and industrial wastewater
discharges in the coastal zone, as of January 1995. By far, the largest number of outfalls are
found in Harris County, reflecting the concentration of industry and population in the county.

     The Galveston Bay system is part of a 1, 155 square-mile (2,992 sq. km.) watershed that
encompasses parts of three counties, including Harris County. Along with the concentration of
petrochemical industries, Galveston Bay receives the wastewater from communities with a total
population exceeding seven million. Nearly 50 percent of wastewater discharges in the state are
in the Galveston Bay watershed. The Houston Ship Channel receives approximately 550
permitted discharges, 13.4 percent of the state total (Texas Water Commission, 1992b).

 e. Emission of Air Pollutants

     The TNRCC is responsible for ensuring that air quality is improved and maintained in the
state, based upon Federal standards established for specific criteria pollutants. Criteria pollutants
include carbon monoxide; lead, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.0
Standards for these pollutants are established at levels to protect human health and the
environment. For the industrialized coastal area, TNRCC's air quality control plans focus on
reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and other emissions that result in the
formation of ground-level ozone.

    Data compiled for the national TRI shows Texas, with 60 percent of the nation's
petrochemical refining production capacity and 25 percent of its oil refining capacity, in the
forefront of industrial pollution reduction efforts. From 1987 to 1994, roughly 1,200 Texas
manufacturers demonstrated a 43 percent reduction in air releases of toxic chemicals reported in
the TRI.

 f. Navigation

    Navigation and navigation-related activities (e.g., dredging and dredged material disposal)
can conflict with - or benefit - other human uses and resource management goals in the coastal
region.

    Prop scarring or the prop washing of sediments into adjacent sensitive areas by vessel traffic
can damage or destroy submerged aquatic vegetation. Valuable upland and intertidal wildlife
habitat can be lost to shoreline erosion caused or accelerated by vessel wakes. Water quality
problems and fish kills can result from improperly planned access channels and canal lot

developments that have inadequate circulation and flushing. Submerged aquatic vegetation and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 28                     August 1996







shellfish beds can be degraded or destroyed by siltation resulting from dredging and disposal
operations.

     In contrast, however, many of these same activities can have positive impacts if properly
planned and sited. New navigation channels and disposal sites can improve water circulation,
enhancing fisheries and providing escape routes for aquatic species during unusual freeze or low-
water events; dredged material can be used beneficially to restore, enhance, or create wildlife
habitat and beaches can be nourished or eroding shorelines replenished using dredged materials
of appropriate grain size and quality.

    Navigation-related activities impact natural resources primarily through dredging and
maintenance of ship channels and from oil spills and marine debris discharged into bay and
estuary waters. On the upper coast, channels often allow saltwater intrusion many miles inland
from the Gulf of Mexico, adversely affecting natural salinity regimes. This results in loss or
change in vegetation and erosion of marsh soils. Erosion along navigation channels leads to
similar wetland losses.

    More than 95 percent of all goods imported and exported by the nation pass through
America's ports and harbors (Coastal States Organization, 1993), and Texas is the largest
maritime state in the United States (Texas Transportation Institute, 1989).

    Due to the shallow nature of Texas bays, estuaries, and nearshore Gulf waters, navigation on
the Texas Gulf Coast by large vessels is limited to dredged channels. The development of Texas'
commercial waterway network began around 1855 with completion of the Port of Galveston, the
first deepwater port in Texas. Another early development was the Houston Ship Channel,
opened in 1914, to connect Buffao Bayou (the Port of Houston) to the Gulf of Mexico. These
were the first of many channel construction projects in Texas' shallow bays and estuaries that
would eventually link Texas ports to national and international commerce (fig. 3).

    The primary navigation artery for waterborme commerce in Texas is the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW) (fig. 4). Completed in 1947, the Texas Section of the GIWW stretches more
than 426 miles from the Louisiana border to the Port of Brownsville, providing protected inland
travel between ports and a common link for an additional 419 miles of ancillary dredged
channels. The GIWW, and the many side channels, link 12 deep-draft and numerous shallow-
draft Texas port facilities to worldwide commerce (Texas Department of Transportation, 1992).

    The social and economic importance of commercial navigation in Texas is significant and
has been recognized in law. The Texas Coastal Waterway Act of 1975 states in part, "it is the
policy of the State of Texas ... to support the marine commerce and economy of this state by
providing for the shallow draft navigation of the state's coastal waters in an environmentally
sound fashion," and "the legislature finds and declares ~tht... marine commerce is a vital
element of the state's economy and the benefits derived therefrom are realized directly or
indirectly by the entire state."





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 29                     August 1996






                                                                  FIGURE 3




      NAVIGABLE CHANNELS


                                   ON


 THE TEXAS GULF COAST'


From:  Texas Department of Transportation,                                                                                                         E
            1992, The Gulf Intracoastal
            waterway in Texas.





























                                             A                     S  Freeport HarborD (-DRFT                                              SUAna LOac Canne
                           C~~~~~~~~~~~~~Is                            ab ieece Wategrway Ship) Adamse  (Hayou                          C       hannel to Lbert
                                                                7  Corus Coin   t  Ship Channel (UC CSC            a               Cowa  Bayou  Canl(KW
                                                                3 Brazo  Citly CHarbor (BTC)                               H        ieMl   u  Chann     el toPatSClva
                                                                              4 Galvesuo~~~~~~~~~                                 Harbour T hnes(AV  obe Biayo Channel (SC
                                                                              6~~~~~~~~~~~~~.  Freepr abr(HEA                       ns ayou Channel(SC
                           4~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "AgraSi                                                                                       BrdyIsande 14C  Channel to Lbert
                                                                              7  Corpus Christi S= ChannLeLightCDraf  Cedanne  Bayou
                                                                            -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Babul   nraasa   aTermial                        Cha nnel (         HSC)
                                                                                                                      H      DGreensn Bayou Channel (USC)
                                                                                                                      0   BrfadyslBayou Channel MC
                                                                                                                      P   Lihoclte Drayot Channel UC
                                                                                                                     )      Sanlerard Crieer Clerhannel
                           $"Illrow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                         Gulfonracoasa Riverw Channel (S
                                  KE#4EDY~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T                                                                       ikv         ao Channlt   e  luf    (HSC)
                                                                                                                     0       fftsByu Channeltootaaa
                                              I~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ChanBenelt ardoo  Riefur  (Chane
                                                                                                                     S      Channel to Vilctoria
                                                                                                                     T      Channel to Seadlufft HC

                                                                                                                     V      Channel to Vicktoria
                                                                                                                     Z      Channel to Sadranssfas

                                                                                                                     AA channel to Port Aransas (CCSC)
                                                                                                                      BB    Jewel Fulton Canal
                                              cc                                                                              ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CC    Channel to Port gansfield
                               WIU..ACY                                                                                         DO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0    Channel to Harlingen
                                                  W~~~~~~~~W4~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~EE    Channel to Port Isabel
                                                                                                                      FF     Fishing Boat Harbor (BIU)




                                                                     These give channels maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                                                                      Galveston District. SWGCO-M, I1992.



                                                                     III-30








                                                              FIGURE 4


                                Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

                                             - -      A   ~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~\SANJA~fV1V  .-

     tv     -TRVIS I                                                                  M-tMk                                    HA\  I N'
                X"  -2/                               W~~~~~~~~~ASHINGTN   --I
                     "B 'ASWOP 
     HAY&S         'KWLLR-T< \                                                                                          Y     1                 RM


                                                                    WA~~LEA

   -- GUADALUPE  >'COLORA'DO                                             ~       -




  '>WILSON     '~"


      KANE




















                                                                     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
                                                                     Coastal Zone Boundary
DOKS C o s a W e lnsOy
                           NEDY~~~~~~~~~~~~ CosaWtadsOlEMS GENERAL LAND OFFICE
                                                                                                              Austin, Ter



-eO





                                                                                                             GARRY MAIJRO
                                                                                                              Comminimtoiii
                                                                                                             October loss






                                                               111-31







     Approximately 50 percent of the total U.S. chemical production and 30 percent of its
petroleum industry are located adjacent to dredged channels on the Texas Gulf Coast,
contributing greatly to the 82 million short tons of goods, valued at $23.9 billion, that were
transported on the Texas Section of the GIWW in 1990 (Texas Department of Transportation,
1992).

     Texas ports and dredged channels are critical to the transportation infrastructure of both the
state and the nation, diverting traffic which would otherwise have to go by land or air,
minimizing impacts upon highway and railway systems, and minimizing shipping costs for bulk
goods. Modem containerized facilities and connections to rail, truck, and industrial processing
plants have made Texas ports preeminent in the nation and the world, especially in the shipping
of petroleum and petrochemicals. Nationally, the Port of Houston ranked second in 1992 in total
cargo transported (Tables 4 and 5).

    Additional benefits for Texas ports are expected from the passage of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Port of Houston is Mexico's leading U.S. port, handling
more commodities for Mexico than all of the ports in Mexico combined, and a proposal has been
made to construct a Texas offshore oil terminal where supertankers can unload their cargoes to
decrease environmental hazards posed by oil'spills (Culliton et al., 1992).

    The impacts of this commercial navigation industry upon natural resources of the Texas
coastal region are discussed under the Dredging, Shipping, and Transportation sections which
follow.

 g. Commercial and Recreational Fishing/Boating                             is

      Commercial fishing continues to be an important industry along the Texas coast and
constitutes a significant component of navigational traffic in Texas waters. Texas generally
ranks in the top 10 states nationally in terms of dollar value of commercial fish and shellfish
landed. The 5-year (1990-1994) average dockside value of commercial fishery landings in
Texas exceeded $188 million. In excess of 98 million pounds of shrimp, oysters, crabs, and
finfish, exceeding $175.5 million in ex-vessel value, were harvested in Texas during 1990
(Osburn, 1990). In 1991, approximately 102 million pounds of seafood with an ex-vessel value
of $199 million were harvested from Texas bays and the Gulf of Mexico. Shrimp accounted for
89 percent of the weight and 94 percent of the ex-vessel value in calendar year 1991. Using an
appropriate expansion factor, the total economic impact of this industry at the wholesale level in
Texas approximates one-half billion dollars annually (Campbell et al., 1992).

    It has been estimated that approximately 98 % of the commercial fish and shellfish landed
in the Gulf of Mexico, including Texas, are estuarine-dependent; i.e., dependent on estuaries
for reproduction, nursery areas, food production, or migration. Considering the important
part wetlands play in the coastal estuaries of Texas, it is evident that Texas' wetlands are
essential for supporting the state's fishing industry. The relationship between a fishery and
wetlands has been very effectively demonstrated for the shrimp fishery, which is a major
component of Texas' fishery landings. Research has shown that the productivity of shrimp
fisheries is directly related to the amount of vegetated area in an estuary. In other words, the


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part HI- 32                      August 1996








                                                      Table 4
                                      TOP 25 U.S. PORTS - 1992
                                   (Thousands of Tons from 1991 figures)*




           1. South Louisiana, LA, Port of                                                             199,662

          2. Houston, TX                                                                              137,664

          3. New York, NY & NJ                                                                        115,141

          4. Valdez, AK                                                                                93,737

          5. Baton Rouge, LA                                                                           84,569

          6. New Orleans, LA                                                                           66,007

          7. Corpus Christi, TX                                                                        60,866

          8. Plaquemine, LA, Port of                                                                   58,497

          9. Norfolk Harbor, VA                                                                        53,397

          10. Long Beach, CA                                                                           52,032

          11. Tampa, FL                                                                                46,408

          12. Lake Charles, LA                                                                         44,014

          13. Texas City, TX                                                                           43,104

          14. Mobile, AL                                                                               40,482

          15. Philadelphia, PA                                                                         39,713

          16. Los Angeles, CA                                                                          39,537

          17. Duluth-Superior, MN & WI                                                                 38,256

          18. Baltimore, MD                                                                            37,656

          19. Pittsburgh, PA                                                                           34,342

          20. Port Arthur, TX                                                                          33,525

          21. St. Louis, MO & IL                                                                       31,948

          22. Pascagoula, MS                                                                           29,245

          23. Portland, OR                                                                             28,227

          24. Newport News, VA                                                                         24,450

          25. Beaumont, TX                                                                             22,702

        * Source:   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center Update, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center Preliminary
                    Report, November 24, 1993.







Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS                 Part 11- 33                               August 1996







                                                       Table 5
                                     Tonnage Handled by Texas Ports
                                          for the Period 1989 - 1992


                PoRT .                       '989 1             199G       I       1991       1       1992

  Houston, Texas                            124,886,883        126,177,644        131,234,000       137,663,612

  Corpus Christi, Texas**                    57,931,945         62,023,736         56,974,000        60,866,092

  Texas City, Texas                          42,746,698         48,071,122         43,290,000        43,104,101

  Beaumont, Texas                            31,947,319         26,728,664         22,383,000        22,701,500

  Port Arthur, Texas                         23,801,409         30,679,583         29,835,000        33,524,964

  Freeport, Texas                            15,137,891         14,494,397         15,666,000         14,952,599

  Galveston, Texas                           12,354,709          9,629,434         10,858,000         12,317,599

  Port Lavaca-Point Comfort, Texas            5,061,695          5,097,107          6,266,000          5,389,932

  Channel to Victoria, Texas                  3,562,336          3,740,374          3,408,000         4,265,228

  Chocolate Bayou, Texas                      3,526,758          3,300,000          3,469,000                  *

  Brownsville, Texas                          1,237,027          1,371,606          1,620,000          1,594,222

  Orange, Texas                                 657,627            709,490            849,000           552,504

  Sabine Pass Harbor, Texas                   1,248,308            630,432            503,000           419,832

  Harlingen, Texas (Arroyo Colorado)            753,937                  *            795,000                  *

  Colorado River, Texas                         682,328                  *            577,000                  *

 Johnson Bayou, Louisiana                      839,594                  *            596,000                  *

 Dickinson, Texas                              722,645                  *            532,000                  *

  Sweeny, Texas (San Bernard River)             480,519                  *                  *                  *

 Port Isabel, Texas                            318,466                  *            247,000           234,401

 Cedar Bayou, Texas                            275,458                  *            218,000                  *

 Rockport, Texas                                 2,336                  *                  *                355

 Channel to Aransas Pass, Texas                 84,325                  *                  *             13,398

 Port Mansfield, Texas                           3,909                  *                  *                  *

 Anahuac, Texas                                  3,033                  *                  *                  *

 Channel to Liberty, Texas                       4,443                  *                  *                  *

 Clear Creek, Texas                                  *                  *                  *                  *

 Double Bayou, Texas                             2,850                  *                  *                  *

 Palacios, Texas                                     *                  *                  *                  *
* Data unavailable at time of printing.
** Including Harbor Island.
NOTE: Data above is a compilation of information from 1991 MV-GC Freight Traffic Tables, Advanced Information, Navigation Data Center,
Waterbome Commerce Statistics Center, Sept. 1993; and personal communication, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, March 1994.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS          Part III- 34                            August 1996








           more wetlands there are in an estuary, the more shrimp the estuary will produce.
           Unfortunately, the converse is also true, which is why it is critical to conserve and restore
           coastal wetlands in Texas. Another example of a fishery's dependence on wetlands is found in
           the menhaden fishery, whose total landings (Atlantic and Gulf) have decreased by 26% in the
           last decade. Menhaden are dependent on wetlands for nursery habitat, and the regional
           management plan for Gulf menhaden cites the loss of coastal wetlands as one of the principal
           threat to that fishery.

               Recreational fisheries also play an extremely important role in the state's economy. In
           1991 recreational boaters spent more than $1 billion fishing in Texas' waters, generating more
           than $72 million in state sales tax. About a third of the state's recreational fishing occurs in
           coastal waters. Annually, recreational boat owners in Texas originate more than 2.4 midllion
          boat trips in coastal waters. In 1991, saltwater recreational fishing resulted in $200 million in
          earnings and supported almost 1 1,000 jobs in coastal areas. Communities such as Port Isabel,
          Aransas Pass, Palacios, and Freeport all depend on fishing to support their local economies.

               Recreational boat traffic can impact coastal natural resources. Intensive "prop-scarring" of
          submerged aquatic vegetation - primarily seagrass - in shallow-water bays throughout the mid
          and southern Texas coast regions is not uncommon. Although this impact to aquatic vegetation
          has not been fully quantified, aerial photographs provide a reliable indication of the extent of the
          impact.

*         ~~~h. Dredging

               Texas bays and estuaries are crisscrossed by over 770 miles of federally maintained dredged
          channels and an as yet unquantified number of private and commercial channels. Texas is second
          only to Louisiana in the quantity of material dredged in Federal navigation projects each year.

               In Texas coastal waters, material excavated from federally maintained channels is placed in
          more than 500 "designated" disposal sites. These disposal sites are typically upland confined,
          open-water confined, upland and open-water partially confined, open-water unconfined in bays
          and estuaries, and open-water unconfined in Federally approved Ocean Dredged Material
          Disposal Sites (ODMDS) located in the Gulf of Mexico. The disposal sites located in the bay and
          estuary environments encumber approximately 72,000 acres (about II12 square miles) of upland,
          intertidal, and submerged lands. The Gulf of Mexico ODMIDS encumber approximately 25,875
          acres or 40.43 square miles (General Land Office, 1993).

               According to the Corps of Engineers, the Galveston District dredges about 30 to 40 million
          cubic yards of material annually. Approximately 50% of that material is placed within confined
          placement areas. The other half is placed in beach fill projects, bird island nourishment projects,
          partially confined or unconfined uplands, the open Gulf of Mexico, or the open bay. Open bay
          placement accounts for approximately 20% of the total material dredged in the district, or
          approximately 8 million cubic yards of material every year.

           Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 35                     August 1996









     The most significant environmental impacts of dredged material disposal in Texas waters are
related to the historic preference for use of partially confined or unconfined open-water disposal
sites. Material placed in these sites typically disperses as mud flows or siltation during or
immediately following the disposal operation, commonly beyond the authorized limits of the
disposal site. A study conducted in Galveston Bay (Bassi and Basco, 1974) documented that up
to 63 percent of the material placed in an unconfined site was redistributed outside the designated
area over a period of five months, spreading out over the bay floor as a mud-density flow and
eventually impacting an area three times larger than the original disposal site.

     Dispersion of dredged material beyond the boundaries of a designated disposal site is
dependent on many factors including the quantity and type of material, depth of placement, and
technology used. Material typically dredged from channels in Texas bays and estuaries during
maintenance operations is fine-grained and does not settle out of the water column rapidly. This
type of material is easily dispersed into adjacent habitats. No comprehensive studies of the
impacts of this dredged sediment dispersal upon aquatic resources in Texas bays and estuaries
have been undertaken.

    Additional impacts (important from the cumulative perspective) occur from private and
commercial dredging activities permitted by Federal and state regulatory agencies. These projects
range from small boat slips and private channels to large access channels for oil and gas
exploration, channels and basins for commercial marinas, and berthing areas for shipping.

    In addition to potential impacts on benithic communities and cultural resources from direct
removal or siltation, dredging and disposal of dredged material may also alter water circulation
patterns, sediment transport systems, and bathymetry, resulting in accelerated shoreline erosion,
increased turbidity, resuspended contaminants, and potential adverse impacts on water quality.
These alterations can, in turn, affect the health of aquatic organisms and human users of coastal
resources.

 i. Shinrmina and Onerational Activities

    More than 102,000 vessel trips transported more than 302 million tons of cargo to the six
largest Texas ports during 1987 (Center for Marine Conservation). Shipping traffic is largely
responsible for marine debris that is removed from Texas Gulf beaches each year. During the
1992 National Coastal Cleanup 13,000 volunteers cleaned 166 miles of Gulf beach in Texas,
collecting 351,440 pounds of debris (Center for Marine Conservation, 1992) (fig. 5). This marine
debris can be broadly broken down into two main categories: (1) ocean-based debris, which
includes garbage disposed of by commercial and recreational fishing and boating vessels,
merchant and cargo vessels, petroleum industry activities, and passenger cruise ships; and (2)
land-based debris, which includes trash left by beach users, items that make their way to the beach
through antiquated or inadequate sewage systems, and debris contributed by storm drains. (Center
for Marine Conservation, 1992).


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 36                     August 1996








     A variety of sources are responsible for the discharge of oil and chemicals into Texas coastal
waters. Data for these discharges, compiled by the GLO's Oil Spill Prevention and Response
Division, reveal the following breakdown of spill constituents discharged into Texas waters in
calendar year 1992: 74.9 percent oil, 6.5 percent chemical, 8.6 percent other (including tallows,
vegetable oils, drilling mud, etc.), and 10.0 percent classified as "mystery." The regional
distribution of these spills is illustrated in figure 6 (General Land Office, 1993).

 j. Shoreline Development

     Rapid population growth and resulting development throughout the coastal zone over the last
two decades have resulted in tremendous pressure to locate development close to the water. The
value of residential, commercial, and industrial development is enhanced by proximity to the
water. This has led to progressively complex issues that must be resolved by government entities,
industry, developers, and coastal residents. These issues arise from the need to protect the
sensitive coastal environment and to protect life and property from the forces of nature while
preserving or enhancing multiple uses of valuable coastal resources, particularly those uses whose
very existence and success depend on a waterfront location.

     In hearings and workshops sponsored by the GLO in 1990, coastal citizens identified public
beach access, dune protection, and shoreline erosion as three of the four most critical problems
that a coastal management program should address (Texas Coastal Management Plan -1991). The
beaches and dune complexes on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline are one of the state's most precious
natural resources. One of the greatest coastal management challenges is to simultaneously
provide for development of highly valuable beachfront property, improve public access to beaches
and protect them from erosion exacerbated by development, and preserve dunes for their storm
protection and erosion prevention functions.

    Erosion rates along the Texas coast vary. More thani 27,000 acres of Gulf shoreline were lost
between the mid-1I800s and 1982, at an average long-term rate of about 225 acres/year. Bay
shoreline loss between 1930 and 1982 averaged 287 acres/year (Paine and Morton, 1989).

 k. Industrial/Commercial Construction

    Commercial and industrial building along the nation's coastline accounted for approximately
40 percent of the total authorized construction between 1970 and 1989. Of that, 24 percent was in
the Gulf of Mexico region. Texas had the highest level of coastal office development in the early
1980s as a result of the building boom in Houston. A decline in building permits in the coastal
counties occurred after 1984; however, Texas still ranks third in the nation in retail building
construction, second in office building construction, and sixth in industrial building construction.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 37                       August 1996







                                         FIGURE 5


   PERCENT COMPOSITION Of TEXAS'S BEACHF DEBRIS:







                  Plastic 68.76








                                                                                  C$o1h 1.34
                                                                                  Wood 2.56




                                                                              Paper 7.5




                                      Gloss 8.6      RPubber 249







  TEXAS'S 1992 DIRTY DOZEN:.

                                              Total Number                  Percent of Total
                                                Reported                   Debris Collected

   1. Plastic pieces                              47,392                          10.01
   2. Plastic caps/lids                           28,593                           6.04
   3. C0garette butts                             25,161                           5.31
   4. Plastic food bags/wrappers                  24,891                           5.26
   5. Plastic rope                                22,813                           4.8
   6. Foamed plastic pieces                       19,775                           4.17
   7. Metal beverage cuts                         17,466                           3.69
   S. Glas beverage bottles                       16,18                            3.42
   9. Plastic beverage botties                    13,136                            2.77
  10. Miscellaneous plastic hags                  13,03                            2.7
  11. Paper pieces                                12,267                           2.59
  12. Glass pieces                                12,02                             2.54

  Total                                           2,52,761                         53.37


From:    Center for marine Conservation, 1992
         National Coastal Cleanup Results.


                                              III-38



                                       FIGURE 6


Percentage of Spills Per Region
Calendar Year 1992








                                                                  REGION I

          REGION 3
              30. 19%














                                                      GION 2

  pr(=: Ceneral Tantj office, i993 oil Spill' Prevrention and
          Response Act Progress Report 1qaticnal Coastal Cleanu~p Results.

     Region I  Region  2f                                            Region 2
     Cmft Os f AMResa, Orange, -    calft; of flarris, Brazodia, and  coebtist of Jadcon, Vidadd,
     and padts of Chambers and   Patt of Galve~ston, Chambers,      Colimun, Re~uwi, Armess, San
     Galveston (ounfies. -and Matagorda Counfies.            N M ti~, Nueces, M~beSg
                                                             Kenedy, Willacy, Carneron end
                                                             poat of Mawoaorda Counfies.


                                     III-39









      The hotel industry is a vital part of the coastal economy. Texas ranked fifth in the nation in
coastal hotel and recreational building construction for the period of 1970 through 1989. Many of
Texas' most popular vacation spots are located on or near the coast. Together with the growing
coastal population, the demand for coastal recreational opportunities and the stress on natural
systems as a result of increased tourist visits are expected to grow. Like commercial and
industrial growth, the growth of the hotel industry reached its peak in the ealy 1980s and has
declined since.

      The Texas Department of Commerce has compiled figures on the economic impact of travel
and tourism on Texas counties in 1990-199 1, and the economic impact on coastal counties is
substantial. For example, in the one-year time period, travel-related expenditures in Harris
County amounted to about $3,380,800,000, payroll of $1,318,500,000, and employment of 73,340
people.

      Texas coastal marinas provide direct access to bays, the Laguna Madre, and the Gulf of
Mexico. Galveston Bay accounts for 30 percent of the total number of marinas on the Texas coast
and 63 percent of the total wet slips in commercial marinas. The demand for recreational marinas
is high in the coastal zone and will continue to increase. In addition to their value in providing
protected moorage, fuel, repairs, and sanitation for boats, coastal marinas provide many social and
economic benefits. These include access to coastal waters, focal points for community activities,
focus for upland development, tax revenues for local communities, revenue for owners and the
broader marine industry, and employment opportunities (Ditton et al., 1988).

 1. Residential Construction

      Choosing a location for a home along the Texas coast today is quite different from the
choices made by the first Texas settlers. The first coastal inhabitants in Texas were the
Karankawas, a nomadic tribe of Indians who hunted game on the barrier islands and fished in the
adjacent bays and lagoons. The wisdom of the Karankawas is demonstrated by their choice of
mainland campsites, where higher elevations provided safety and protection from the forces of
nature (Morton et al., 1983). With the advent of "coastal engineering" (bulkheads, seawalls, etc.)
and greater accessibility of the coast, development has increasingly been located along vulnerable
shorelines.

     With its abundant natural resources, temperate climate, and proximity to population centers,
the coastal shoreline of Texas offers a variety of highly desirable residential sites. Many
communities now sprawl across the coastal landscape. The Gulf shore has become a magnet for
condominium development, while the bay shores have been drained and filled to accommodate
the growing resident population. Between 1970 and 1989, Texas was one of the ten leading states
in coastal residential construction (Culliton et al., 1992). By 1990, over two million single and
multi-family housing units ha been constructed within the Texas coastal area (Bureau of the
Census, 1990). In addition, single-family houses have become larger. The average American
single-family home is now approximately 2,000 square feet, 25 percent larger tam in 1970

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 40                     August 1996      is









          (Culliton et al., 1992). The construction of larger homes has resulted in the demand for larger
          shoreline lots.

                In the past, wetlands and other sensitive areas along some shorelines were converted into
          dry land for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Dredging for waterfront
          development destroys shoreline habitats and resuspends sediments, causing increased turbidity
          which reduces light penetration to seagrass beds and suffocates oysters and other filter feeders. If
          the sediments are contaminated, their resuspension can release contaminants into the surrounding
          waters, degrading water quality. In addition, industrial and municipal groundwater pumping and,
          locally, extraction of oil and gas have accelerated subsidence around the Galveston Bay system.
          Subsidence destroys nearshore wetlands and other valuable surface resources and threatens and
          devalues shoreline properties.

                In addition to contributing its share of point-source wastewater discharges, shoreline
          development is a major contributor of pollutants to coastal waters through stormwater runoff.
          This nonpoint-source pollution can contain garbage, pesticides, herbicides, dirt, oil, grease, and
          fecal coliform bacteria. Each year, tons of chemicals are applied by professional lawn care
          services, pest control services, and individual landowners. Texas Department of Agriculture
          (TDA) data indicate that residential runoff transports more pesticides into waterways than runoff
          from farmland. These chemicals are extremely toxic and are responsible for both the degradation
          and the mortality of marine resources. Runoff is a major contributor to seagrass decline. In
          Galveston Bay alone, 5,200 acres of seagrasses have been lost since the 1950s (McFarlane, 1988).
          Pathogens discharged from septic systems in some shoreline residential developments may cause
          disease and injury to aquatic resources and make coastal waters unsafe for human contact.

           m. Public Beach Access

                The Texas Open Beaches Act has guaranteed the public's right of access to and use of the
          state's public beaches since 1959. The Act authorizes the Texas attorney general to file suit
          against anyone who interferes with the public use of Gulf of Mexico beaches. Both Texas courts
          and the state legislature have recognized that the public has a vested common law property right
         to use the Gulf beaches, a right akin to an easement. Of the 367 miles of beach, 173 miles are
          considered easily accessible; that is, accessible by driving along the shore or by walking no more
         than one mile from a point that can be reached by a two-wheel-drive vehicle.. Access to public
         beaches is provided by roads, off-beach parking, and dune walkovers.

               The distance between and number of beach accessways (both vehicular and pedestrian) vary
         from community to community along the coast. For example, the City of Port Aransas maintains
         eight vehicular accessways for its nearly four and one-half miles of Gulf shoreline. The beach is
         open to vehicular traffic, although for public safety reasons, there are separate parking and bathing
         areas on the beach (Urban Engineering, 1993). The City of Galveston is considering the provision
         of off-beach parking areas along some portions of Galveston Island because'local citizens are
         concerned about public safety and excessive vehicular traffic.

0        ~~~Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 41                   August 1996









      More beach accessways may allow increased use of the public beach. However, the
increased public use could have adverse effects on adjacent dunes and/or coastal natural resources
if public facilities are not available or if the accessways are not designed to avoid degrading or
destroying those natural resources. Establishing new beach accessways through wetlands and
dunes degrades the habitat and could conflict with use of the area for bird-watching or wildlife
observation.

 n. Erosion Resnonse

      Erosion response techniques include both structural and nonstructural methods. Erosion
response structures include retaining walls, bulkheads, seawalls, rubble mounds, revetments,
breakwaters, and groins. These structures are usually constructed where shoreline retreat has
threatened coastal development. They are more commonly found in urban areas protecting
residential and commercial structures and infrastructure. The longest segments of structurally
modified shoreline occur in Galveston Bay, where 42 miles, or 18 percent of the total bay
shoreline, is protected by structures (Morton and Paine, 1990).

      While these structures may help protect coastal development and property, they can alter the
coastal hydrologic and depositional system and adversely affect wetland productivity and
downdrift shores. Wave energy reflected from a hard structure such as a seawall, bulkhead,
retaining wall, rubble mound, or revetment may exacerbate erosion at the toe and endpoints of the
structure. Breakwaters and groins are designed to slow the littoral current so that sediment can be
deposited on the adjacent shore. However, this action decreases or depletes the amount of
sediment available to downdrift shores and results in their erosion. The durability and
effectiveness of structures in reducing land loss vary from site to site.

     Nonstructural erosion response methods include beach nourishment, sediment bypassing,
dune restoration, nearshore sediment berms, and wetland creation. Nonstructural erosion response
methods are usually used where shoreline retreat has threatened coastal development or has
caused deterioration of a recreational beach.

     Nonstructural methods for erosion response all add sediment to the local sand budget.
Beach nourishment extends the public beach and fills state-owned submerged lands and may have
a temporary negative effect on submerged aquatic vegetation and infaunal species. Sediment
bypassing helps keep the local sand budget in equilibrium and helps to maintain the adjacent
shoreline. Nearshore berms attenuate wave energy while contributing sand to the littoral current.
Dune restoration protects the public beach by supplying sediment to the eroded beach during
storms. Beach nourishment and dune restoration may temporarily disrupt public beach access and
use.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 42                      August 1996








 o. Storms. Hurricanes. and Flooding

      Extreme natural events such as tropical storms and hurricanes are reminders of the
vulnerability of the coastal zone. During hurricane conditions, low-pressure weather systems are
accompanied by intensified winds and elevated tides. Storm tides are often extremely destructive
and are the cause of the majority of property damage and loss during a storm.

      The Texas coast is subjected to a hurricane or tropical storm about once every two years
(McGowen et al., 1977). During Hurricane Carla in 1961, storm tides reached nearly 15 feet in
Galveston and 21 feet in Port Lavaca. Erosion of the beach and foredune areas and breaching of
barrier islands are associated with such storm tides. In 1983, Hurricane Alicia's 102 mph winds
and storm tide of up to 11 feet (mean sea level) caused flooding and subsequent coastal erosion on
the upper Texas coast (Morton and Paine, 1985). The western two-thirds of Galveston Island
sustained the most beach erosion, although measurable erosion occurred at least 55 miles
northeast of landfall (Savage et al., 1984).

      Coastal flooding is an ever-present threat to public safety and coastal natural resources.
Elevations of the Texas coastal zone are generally low (less than 10 feet) with the exception of
dune areas along the coastal bend and lower coast, where they can reach 40 feet above mean sea
level. Large, well vegetated dunes are able to protect landward properties from flooding, but most
areas of the coast are considered floodprone.

      Table 6 shows the number of floodprone communities located within the 19 coastal
counties. Of the 163 communities, only eight do not participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). The NFIP makes flood insurance available to those communities that follow the
Federal regulations for reducing future flood losses.

 p. Subsidence

      Subsidence, the sinking of the land surface, is a primary contributor to shoreline loss.
Subsidence may be due to both relative sea level rise and the withdrawal of groundwater, and, in
some instances, to oil and gas extraction. As the water level rises, marsh along the shoreline is
drowned. When residential development is located along the shoreline, the potential for marsh
migration inland is eliminated. The result is a reduction in wetland habitats which provide the
foundation for commercial and recreational fisheries. Subsidence also exposes shorelines to
greater wave activity, which in turn accelerates coastal erosion. Subsidence was a particularly
significant problem in the Galveston Bay area in the 1970s and early 1980s. The formation of the
Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, which regulates groundwater withdrawal, has helped
alleviate the problem.





Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II- 43                       August 1996








                                   Table 6


                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

                            Status of Communities
                        Within the 19 Coastal Counties


COUNTY                      NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES         COMMUNITIES NOT
                            DESIGNATED AS FLOODPRONE   PARTICIPATING IN THE NFIP



Aransas                               3
Brazoria                             25
Calhoun                               4
Cameron                              16                 Town of Rangerville
Chambers                              6                   Town of Cove
                                                           Old River-Winfree
Galveston                            15
Harris                               27
Jackson                               4
Jefferson                            11                    City of China
Kenedy                                1
Kleberg                               2
Liberty                              11                   City of Devers
                                                          Town of Kenefick
                                                        City of North Cleveland
Matagorda                             3
Nueces                                7
Orange                                8
Refugio                               5                Town of San Patricia
San Patricia                          9
Victoria                              2
Willacy                               4

                           TOTAL   163                TOTAL NOT
                                                       PARTICIPATING =      5



 **All CMP coastal county authorities participate in the NFIP and are included in the total number. 

       (Data convdeld from Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commrission. NPIP Master status Report 2122194)




                                     111-44








 q. Infrastructure

      By the year 2000, it is estimated that more than 5.3 million persons will live in the coastal
area (Texas General Land Office, 1992). The Galveston Bay complex ranks first among
urbanized areas in the state and is the eighth largest in the United States. Twenty percent of the
total state population lives within the four counties (Chambers, Brazoria, Galveston, and Harris)
surrounding Galveston Bay (Ditton et al., 1988). The population living directly on the state's
shoreline will have more than doubled between 1960 and 2010, according to projections by the
U.S. Department of Commerce (Texas General Land Office, 1992). As the population and the
accompanying development increase, the demand for support facilities and public works increases
accordingly. Public water supplies, transportation systems, schools, public buildings, electric and
gas utilities, sewage, and solid-waste facilities must all meet the needs of expanding coastal
communities.

 r. Water Development

      Public water supplies come from both surface and groundwater sources. One of the state's
nine major aquifers is located along the coast. The Gulf Coast aquifer provides over 1.5 million
acre-feet of water per year (Texas Water Development Board, 1991). The lower coast contains
large quantities of brackish groundwater which can be made useful for water supplies through
desalination. The largest industrial desalination plant in the state, located in Texas City, produces
4 million gallons of fresh water each day (Texas Water Development Board, 1990). Surface water
comes from the Gulf Coast's primary river systems, which include the Sabine, Neches, Trinity,
San Jacinto, Brazos, Colorado, Lavaca, Guadalupe, Nueces, and Rio Grande.

     Major impoundments or diversions within the coastal zone are Lake Texana on the Navidad
River in Jackson County (10,995 surface acres) (Texas Water Commission, 1992), Wallisville
Lake on the Trinity River in Chambers County (3,800 surface acres) (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1991), Lake Houston in Harris County (12,230 surface acres) (Texas Water
Commission, 1992), and the Colorado River diversion project (diversion of the river into
Matagorda Bay). Other major impoundments, such as the Falcon Reservoir, occur within 200
miles of the coast. In addition, several salinity barriers occur in the coastal zone, including
barriers on Chocolate Bayou, Taylors Bayou, and the Neches River (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1991).

     The inflow of fresh water is widely recognized as an essential factor influencing the
biological productivity of the coastal ecosystem. Some of the functional roles of fresh water
include dilution of seawater, creation and maintenance of low-salinity nursery habitats for juvenile
fish and other biota, moderation of water temperatures, a medium for the transport of beneficial
sediments and nutrients, and transportation of external organic detritus from decaying plant and
animal tissues into the bay-estuary-lagoon system.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 45                      August 1996








      Freshwater inflow needs of bay-estuary-lagoon systems are dynamic, and both quantity and
seasonal timing are important to maintaining a productive coastal ecosystem. Extended inflow
conditions that fall below maintenance levels can degrade the ecosystem and result in the loss of
important nursery areas for the young of economically valuable fish and shellfish, and a reduction
in the potential for natural assimilation of organic and nutritive wastes produced by municipal,
industrial, and agricultural activities. Large-scale reductions in fresh water can be produced by
both meteorological events and human activities. Dramatic reductions in freshwater inflow can
result from droughts and from dams and associated impoundments on streams and rivers, water
diversion and control projects, and surface and groundwater withdrawals.

      Major effects on the coastal ecosystem from loss of freshwater inflow due to droughts,
dams, diversions, or withdrawals include increased salinity of bay-estuary-lagoon waters; reduced
mixing due to salinity differences and stratification of the water column; penetration of the salt-
wedge farther upstream, allowing greater intrusion of marine predators, parasites, and diseases;
saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater and surface water; diminished supply of nutrients
from inland sources; diminished supply of sediments to subsiding delta wetlands resulting in the
conversion of vegetated marshes to open-water areas; loss of economically important seafood
harvests from coastal fisheries for reasons related to high salinity; reduced food supply; loss of
nursery habitats; deterioration of salt marshes and seagrass beds under constantly elevated
salinities; and alteration of littoral drift and nearshore circulation patterns.

 s. Transportation

      Public roadways serve over 3.3 million registered vehicles in the Texas coastal area. Over
68,000 people use public transportation such as buses, streetcars, or trolleys as a means of
transportation to and from work (Bureau of the Census, 1990). The state highway system within
the coastal area is highly developed. Interstate 45 traverses portions of Harris County and
terminates in Galveston. Interstate IO, linking the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, crosses portions of
Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, and Harris counties, linking with Interstate 45 in Houston.

      Other major traffic arteries include U.S. Highway 90, which runs parallel to or congruent
with 1-10 on an east-west route; U.S. 59, which runm west from Houston terminating on the
Mexican border at Laredo, Texas; and U.S. 77, which originates at the Canadian border, enters the
state near Dallas/Ft. Worth, and runs parallel to the central and lower Texas coast, linking the
cities of Victoria, Corpus Christi, Kingsville, and Raymondville before terminating at the
Mexican border in Brownsville.

      Numerous minor state highways and farm-to-market roads lead from these maj or highways
to remote areas. The state maintains approximately 6,492 miles (centerline measurement) of
highways in the coastal area and expended more than $672 million on highway maintenance and
construction during fiscal year 1992, excluding costs of administrative support for the activities.
This figure represents approximately 30 percent of statewide expenditures in only eight percent of


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS  -Part III- 46                        August 1996








             Texas counties (Texas Department of Transportation, 1992). There is one legal international port
             of entry from Mexico within the coastal zone, at Brownsville in Cameron County.

                   There are six railroads within the coastal area with a combined length of approximately 780
             miles. Railroads operating within the area include: (1) Missouri-Pacific, (2) Missouri - Kansas -
             Texas, (3) Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe, (4) Southern Pacific, (5) Burlington Northern, and (6)
             Texas Mexican. The only passenger route (AMTRAK) is from Beaumont to Houston and is
             operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. A Texas High Speed Rail Project has
             been proposed by the Texas TGV Corporation to connect the cities of Houston, Dallas/Ft.Worth,
             and San Antonio. The only portion of the coastal area that would be impacted by this project
             would be northern Harris County. There is one international port of entry by rail from Mexico at
             the Brownsville B&M bridge.

                   Five major airports are located in the coastal area. Regularly scheduled commercial or
             commuter flights from these facilities accounted for approximately 12 million enplaned
             passengers. Twenty-five minor commercial airports and three military airfields are also located in
             the coastal area (Corps of Engineers, 1993) as well as the National Aeronautics and Space
             Administration's Johnson Space Center, which was recently designated as operations and planning
             center for the United States Space Station Program.

                   The construction, maintenance, and operation activities related to highways, railroads, and
             airports contribute to nonpoint-source pollution as oils and grease are washed into drainage
             systems and directly or indirectly transported into coastal bays, estuaries, or the Gulf of Mexico,
             altering water quality. Ditches and drains associated with transportation routes can result in rapid
             draining of rainwater. The impact of this rapid runoff, combined with increased impervious
             cover, can greatly reduce water percolation and groundwater recharge. Potential water quality
             enhancements that can be obtained as surface water runoff passes through shoreline marsh
             habitats is also lost.

                   The construction of new highways and ancillary facilities can result in filling and/or
             modification of wetlands, disruption of surface water flow patterns, and alteration of ecosystem
             dynamics. Elevated roadways, berms, retaining walls, etc., can channel water into barrow ditches
             or drains which speed nonpoint-source pollution to streams, rivers, and estuaries. Transportation
             accidents (rail, highway, and navigation) have the potential to discharge liquid cargo directly into
             the aquatic environment, into wetlands, or into ditches/drains which eventually lead to sensitive
             habitats. Roadside and trackside fires spread into adjacent areas and impact environments outside
             of the authorized right-of-way.

                   The perceived economic and sociologic importance of transportation often outweighs
             environmental considerations in planning for construction techniques, siting, and maintenance
             operations. A lack of master planning results in individually small, but cumulatively important,
             environmental impacts from transportation, construction, and maintenance activities.


I Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II- 47                                  August 1996








 t. Public Utilities/Public Facilities

      Public sewer systems serve over 1.8 million housing units along the coast; 229,000 housing
units use septic tanks or cesspools for sewage disposal (Bureau of the Census, 1990). Municipal
treatment plants account for 62 percent of the waste discharged to Galveston Bay. In 1990, there
were 617 plants with municipal wastewater discharge permits in the Houston-Galveston area
(Hadden and Riggin, 1992). Houston's 69th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant is the largest such
plant in Texas, capable of treating 200 million gallons of sewage every day (Texas Water
Development Board, 1991).

      Electric generating facilities provide 776,396 housing units in the coastal area with
electricity as their primary' source of heat, while gas utilities fuel 893,383 housing units. An
additional 5,032 housing units are reported to use wood as their primary source of heating fuel
(Bureau of the Census, 1990).

      The public medical research centers in the Gulf Coast region are of both national and
international scope. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston has served as the
state's largest university hospital complex and includes nine hospitals (Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts, 1992). Correctional institutions provide housing for 24,1 81 persons. Juvenile
institutions house 1,041 children.

      Government employment makes up a smaller portion of the employment base on the Gulf
Coast than in the state as a whole. Still, the region has significant government employment. In
1990, government office space housed 302,848 local, state, and Federal workers (Bureau of the
Census, 1990).

      Although public facilities and public works provide many services and benefits to coastal
communities, their construction, operation, and maintenance are placing increased pressure on the
coastal environment. The construction of public buildings for schools, office space, and
institutions can contribute to the filling of valuable wetland habitats and to increased pollution
from stormwater and sediment runoff, septic systems, and sewage.

 u. Agriculture

      Agricultural production, processing, transportation, and marketing together make up the
state's second largest economic sector, accounting for 20 percent of the state's employment and
$75 billion in annual economic impact (Hightower, 1990). The economic multiplier for
agriculture is the state's second largest, meaning that agriculture adds proportionately more value
to the state's economy than all other industries except construction. Because agricultural
production and processing are so widespread in Texas, the benefits of agriculture to the economy
reach most of the state's households directly or indirectly.



Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 48                       August 1996









      Every dollar earned by a Texas farmer or rancher adds another $2.16 to the state's economy
as it passes from one economic transaction to another. The 20 counties in the coastal area
comprise a total of 11 million acres, 60 percent of which is currently in agricultural production
(i.e., cropland, rangeland, or timber). Annual income from agricultural production in these
counties exceeds $1 billion (Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, 1985).

      Agriculture and related activities conflict with other uses and activities. Nonpoint-source
pollution, point-source pollution, and soil erosion can affect the water quality of rivers, bays,
estuaries, and aquifers.

 v. Aquaculture

      The development of aquaculture in Texas augments natural aquatic food supplies and
provides alternatives to more traditional agricultural products. Aquaculture is simply defined as
underwater agriculture or technically defined as the rearing of aquatic organisms under controlled
conditions. Texas cultures a wide variety of aquaculture species. In terms of value, the top five
aquaculture industries are: catfish at $2.9 million; aquatic plants at $2.0 million; penaeid shrimp
at $1.9 million; crawfish at $1.8 million; and sportfish at $600,000.

      According to recent studies, the total value of Texas aquaculture production today is
approximately $20 million per year. Based on an annual increase often percent, by the year 2000
the value should be close to $35 million. In 1991, Texas accounted for approximately two-percent
of catfish acreage nationwide and produced approximately two percent of total sales. However,
Texas produced more than 3.8 million pounds of marine and freshwater shrimp worth nearly $11
million, more shrimp than any other state.

      While Texas may have the potential to become a leader in aquaculture, that promise has not
yet been realized. However, a number of signals suggest that the demand for aquaculture products
will continue to increase steadily and that Texas has the natural resources to become a major
supplier of aquaculture products and services. In time, as more aquaculture facilities are
permitted, care must be taken to ensure that they do not adversely impact natural ecosystems and
that exotic species are not introduced into the aquatic system. Aquacultural producers must use
water carefully and make every effort to clean up the wastewater that their operations produce.

 w. Coastal Tourism and Recreation

      Recreational water resources in Texas consist of freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams, and
saltwater bays, estuaries, and the Gulf. It is estimated that there are over 3 million surface acres of
both fresh and salt water in Texas. Of this total, there are approximately 1.2 million surface acres
of fresh water suitable for boating, fishing, and waterskiing (Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan,
1990). For saltwater recreation, approximately 3.9 million square yards are designated for
swimming. Water is important not only for water-based activities, but as a focus for parks and a
variety of other activities, such as camping, picnicking, hiking, and nature study.

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part II- 49                        August 1996









      The Texas Gulf Coast is a major state and national recreational and tourism attraction.
Beaches, bays, and estuaries sustain saltwater fishing, boating, swimming, beachcombing, and a
host of associated activities. Among the more important recreational attractions and resources are
Sea Rim, Goose Island, Galveston Island, and Mustang Island state parks; Padre Island National
Seashore; and state and Federal wildlife refuges.

      Community leaders, government officials, and parks and recreation professionals are
beginning to appreciate the economic value of tourism. During the economic downturn of the
mid-1I980s, community leaders and economic development planners began to capitalize on the
potential of recreational resources in their areas. Recreation and tourism can create jobs,
encourage a more diversified economy, and thus help moderate recessions.

      The U.S. Travel Data Center estimated that the travel industry in Texas, which includes all
trips away from home of I100 miles or more, generated $17.2 billion in gross business receipts in
1986. In the same year, the industry generated $3.8 billion in payrolls, $606 million in state taxes,
and $392 million in local taxes. A study titled " 1983 Outdoor Recreation Trip Expenditures in
Texas," conducted by the TPWD, indicated that Texans spent nearly $9.3 billion on recreation
trips (in-town and out-of-town) in Texas for twenty outdoor recreation activities. Sightseeing and
driving for pleasure topped the list in travel expenditures with over $2 billion. Another TPWD
study, " 1987 Texas State Park Economic Impact Assessment," indicated that the economic impact
to the state of Texas of expenditures by visitors to 92 state park sites was close to half a billion
dollars per year.

      Towns near or adjacent to high-quality natural resource areas such as national and state
parks, forests, reservoirs, waterways, and the Gulf Coast receive significant economic impacts
from expenditures by outdoor recreationists. Resource attractions combined with mild winters
allow communities in the Rio Grande Valley to benefit from the spending of "winter Texans."

      While some communities have been very effective in developing recreational resources and
attracting tourists, others have not taken advantage of these opportunities. Communities that
develop industrial parks to attract industry often neglect outdoor recreational resources that could
increase their attractiveness to industry, bring in tourist dollars, and improve the quality of life for
residents and visitors. Recreational resources are sometimes sacrificed to economic development
rather thani used to complement such development.

      The Texas coast attracts both in- and out-of-state visitors who enjoy beach activities,
saltwater fishing and boating, and bird-watching. The economies of many coastal communities
rely heavily on recreation and tourism, yet other valuable coastal economic activities, such as
shipping, oil development, and land development, can have detrimental impacts on the resources
that support recreation-based tourism.

      Marinas provide important recreational opportunities but can have significant adverse
environmental impacts, depending on their location, design, services offered, and number and

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11-5so                        August 1996









type of boats served. Environmental impacts from coastal marina construction and operation may
be temporary or long-term. Adverse impacts result from dredging and dredged material disposal,
poor design and placement of shoreline and protective structures, wastewater discharge and
stormwater runoff, and boat operation and maintenance.

      Hotels, condominiums, and beach homes provide places for coastal visitors to stay, but
placing those structures in dune areas can contribute to beach erosion where dune sand is
unavailable for replenishment. Developments bait side by side can limit beach access for local
recreationists and day users. Dunes may be damaged by off-road vehicles and even by foot
traffic.

     Marine debris creates serious problems for both recreationists and beach managers. It is
aesthetically unpleasant, and coastal communities spend thousands of dollars cleaning their
beaches every year. Irresponsible coastal residents and visitors contribute to the litter problem
and create safety hazards when they leave glass containers and other debris behind. In the water,
marine debris can be attributed to wastes from merchant vessels, commercial fishing vessels,
cruise ships, military vessels, offshore drilling operations, and recreational boaters. Currents
make Gulf beaches the victims of an international waste problem.

     The Gulf, bays, marshes, and wetlands are coastal resources with many recreational values.
The direct use of the waters by fishermen, boaters, waterfowl hunters, and birders is obvious.
These environments also serve as habitats, breeding grounds, and nurseries for the species which
are critical to the success of fishing, marsh hunting, and wildlife observation.























Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 51                       August 1996








D. Environmental Conseauences

1. Introduction

      The Federal action is the approval of the TCMP as having met the requirements of the
CZMA. This action would have several direct and indirect positive consequences for the
environment and resource users. The direct effects of approval include: (1) provision of Federal
financial assistance under the CZMA to assist with program implementation (ï¿½306 funds), low-
cost construction projects (ï¿½306A funds), and program enhancement (ï¿½309 funds); (2) Federal
consistency provisions pursuant to the CZMA becoming operational (CZMA ï¿½307); (3)
requirements for state consideration of the national interest in energy and other major facilities
and resources of national importance; and (4) meeting one of the eligibility requirements in order
for entities within Texas to receive a deepwater port license from the U.S. Coast Guard to
construct and operate a deepwater port off the Texas coast. The indirect effects of Federal
approval include the implementation of specific policies, procedures and programs that make up
the TCMP.

      Both the direct and indirect effects of program approval should have significant positive
environmental impacts within the Texas coastal zone, particularly on coastal natural resources and
uses.

      The TCMP is consistent with the CZMA requirements, which are in turn consistent with the
environmental considerations underlying NEPA decision-making. This should ensure that state
and national environmental concerns and considerations will become part of state and Federal
decision-making processes with a particular focus on land and water uses and coastal resources
within the Texas coastal zone.

2. Direct Effects

      The direct effects of Federal approval should yield positive impacts to coastal natural
resources. The TCMP contains policies designed to mitigate adverse impacts on coastal natural
resources and ï¿½306 funds should enhance Texas' financial ability to implement those policies.
Specifically, the ï¿½306 funds should help achieve the program goals of preserving, enhancing, or
restoring the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and values of coastal natural resources while
ensuring economic development and multiple human uses of the Texas coastal zone. In terms of
the program policies, ï¿½306 funds can help Texas to: (1) administer, monitor, and enforce the
coastal policies; (2) educate the public on the coastal policies and why they are necessary (e.g., the
impacts from coastal processes and coastal activities and measures to mitigate impacts); (3)
provide assistance to create, enhance, or restore coastal resources, or to help permit applicants
plan early in the development process to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to coastal
resources; and (4) provide training to state and local government decision-makers to better
administer policies.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part HI- 52                        August 1996









      These funds will also enhance the State's ability to respond to emerging coastal issues and
enhance and improve the application of program policies by providing personnel or resources to
develop better information on coastal processes and impacts from activities, and to evaluate
program effectiveness. Section 306A funds will allow Texas to undertake low-cost construction
projects and to preserve, enhance, or restore important coastal resources. It has been NOAA's
experience that states can successfully use ï¿½306A funds as seed monies to leverage other Federal,
state, and local funds for projects. Section 309 funds will allow Texas to continue to enhance its
approved resource protection policies and procedures to address emerging priority needs related
to: (1) protecting, restoring, or enhancing the existing coastal wetlands resource base or creating
new coastal wetlands; (2) developing and adopting procedures to assess, consider, and control
cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and development; (3) reducing marine
debris; and (4) planning for the use of ocean resources.

      The exercise of Federal consistency authority and the use of Federal funding to assist with
Federal consistency reviews should result in significant positive impacts to coastal natural
resources. Management of those resources and the human activities that impact them will become
both more efficient and more effective because Federal agency programs will be better
coordinated with state and local programs through the TCMP. After Federal approval of the
TCMIP, direct Federal activities and development projects, activities requiring Federal licenses
and permits, OCS plans of exploration and production, and activities supported by Federal
funding must comply with the State's enforceable coastal policies, as provided for in section 307
of the CZMA. This will give Texas the ability to ensure that Federal navigation and flood control
projects, dredge and fill permits, transportation projects, military installations, etc. do not result in
unnecessary impacts to coastal resources and that limited public resources are not expended
resolving needless conflicts or duplication of effort because of poor coordination with state or
local programs. This should provide substantial positive institutional impacts as Federal agency
decision-making will be better coordinated and aligned with state and local priorities. It will also
ensure continued consideration of NEPA/CZMAITCMP concerns by the Federal government.

      The development of one or more deepwater ports would have substantial positive impacts
on a wide array of coastal natural resources such as wetlands, estuaries, and beaches. The
construction of deepwater port facilities would reduce both tanker traffic in Texas' bays and
estuaries and the frequency of lightering operations in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby reducing the
risk of major and chronic oil spills. However, pursuant to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 as
amended (33 U.S.C.S. ï¿½ 1503), interested parties such as the Corpus Christi and the Houston port
authorities cannot receive a deepwater port license from the U.S. Coast Guard until Texas has a
Federally approved coastal management program. Therefore, program approval is critical to these
communities.

      The provision of Federal coastal zone management funds should also have positive socio-
economic and institutional impacts. Section 306 and Section 309 funds can be used to enhance
administration and improve compliance with or improve coastal natural resource policies, which
in turn should enhance the sustainability of economies dependent on maintaining renewable

Texas Coastal Management Programn Final EIS    Part III- 53                      August 1996








coastal resources and improve the environmental quality of the coastal zone. Section 306 funds          4
can also be used to benefit the tourism industry by funding feasibility studies and other state and
local planning to develop an ecotourism industry. Texas has already stated an intent to use these
funds to refine and improve the regulatory processes by providing resources or personnel for
developing joint permit applications, enhancing preliminary consistency reviews, and providing
informnation or technical assistance to applicants to expedite the permitting process in order to
provide for more efficient and predictable government decision-making.

      Section 306 and Section 306A funds will also benefit coastal economies by enhancing state
efforts to revitalize deteriorating and under-utilized urban waterfronts and ports by providing
personnel or resources to undertake planning and feasibility studies for these areas as well as
providing low-cost construction funds to undertake actual repairs or reconstruction. Often, ï¿½306A
funds are used to leverage additional Federal, state or local funding to complete these
redevelopment projects. Section 306A funds can also be used to improve Texas' efforts to
enhance access to public beaches and other public coastal areas. Possible projects include
provision of dune walkovers, boat ramps, and off-beach parking. Adverse environmental impacts
from these construction projects are avoided or minimized through NOAA requirements for
completion of environmental assessments prior to approving these projects.

      Section 309 funds can be used to enhance policies and procedures for improving the
sustainability of coastal economies including : (1) preventing or significantly reducing threats to
life and property by eliminating development and redevelopment in high hazard areas and
managing development in other hazard areas; (2) attaining increased opportunities for public
access; and (3) facilitating the siting of energy facilities in an environmentally responsible
manner.

      With the approval of the TCMP, Texas will maintain procedures to ensure that the siting of
energy and other facilities of national interest are given adequate consideration by state and local
governments. The requirement does not compel states to propose a program that accommodates
certain types of facilities. Rather it works to assure that energy and other facilities of national
interest are not arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted under the program. It also requires
states to take into consideration coastal natural resources of national interest in their decision-
making so that these important coastal natural resources are not unnecessarily destroyed or
degraded.

2. Indirect Effects

     The TCMP seeks to conserve, protect, develop, and where feasible, restore the coastal
natural resource areas within the State's coastal zone and to encourage multiple uses of those
resources that are consistent with the goals of the TCMP and the CZMA. Since the TCMIP will be
implemented in conjunction with many other Federal, state, and local government programs in
social and economic systems that are constantly changing, the description of the potential socio-
economic impacts of the program are necessarily general. The TCMP anticipates using future

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 54                       August 1996








           information on socio-economic needs and coastal natural resources developed from the program
           to provide state and local governments with improved decision-making processes for managing
           coastal land and water uses, siting of major facilities, and generally providing increased
           predictability about how uses may occur in the coastal zone.

                 The underlying premise of the TCMP is that local, state, and Federal government decision-
           makers need to understand the dynamics of both the environmental and socio-economic systems
           of the coastal zone and balance the needs of the two through consistent policy decisions. The
           TCMP anticipates cooperatively planning for and managing the uses and natural resources of the
           state so that the its citizens can best determine how both to conserve valuable natural resources
           and accommodate the needs of an expanding population. The program seeks to conserve key
           ecological areas, both for their intrinsic and aesthetic value and because they are a significant part
           of the Texas coast's economic infrastructure. This is achieved by ensuring that industry and
           development meet consistent, predictable performance standards that do not prohibit development
          of ports, navigation channels, oil and gas, and residential or commercial real estate, but avoid,
              mnmze, and remedy their adverse impacts on coastal natural resources.

                Achievement of this balance involves trade-offs that include both positive and negative
          effects. Most of the TCMP's performance standards are already in place in the form of policies or
          rules applied through existing regulatory or natural resource management programs. Continued
          application of these existing standards will have a neutral effect. However, the TCMP will
          coordinate these existing programs so that limited public resources are used more efficiently and
          more effectively. This will result in net positive environmental impacts.

                  Since the TCMP is based largely on existing standards, the potential for increased cost to
          the industries and developments subject to these policies is low. To the extent any increased costs
          are realized because of more effective application of these standards, they should generally be
          one-time, minimal costs. Moreover, the increased costs should be offset by and be commensurate
          with broader, longer term socio-economiic benefits to be realized either by taxpayers or other
          coastal industries, users, or properties. These broader, longer-term benefits would include the
          reduction of public expenditures for pollution cleanup or storm damage, the continued economic
          productivity of fisheries, wildlife, beaches, forests, other renewable resources, and the
          conservation of the natural heritage of the coastal zone.

                Some lost expectations may occur. For example, some coastal property may be limited to a
          use that generates a reasonable rate of economic return, rather than the use that would generate the
          highest rate of return, if the latter would significantly degrade coastal natural resources or put
          public or private property in jeopardy from erosion, hurricanes, or other coastal hazards. Because
          the policies effectively balance different interests, these cases should be limited. Moreover, socio-
          economic gains elsewhere should offset any reduction in rate of return from use of the property.

                Lost expectations or one-time, minimal cost to industries or developments are also offset by
          other broader, longer-term benefits that these same industries and developments should realize

0         ~~~Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    part 111- 55                    August 1996








from better planning and management through the TCMP. These broader, longer-term benefits
would include the reduced in the cost of planning and permitting new development through the
streamlining of government decision-making, protection of property and infrastructure from
erosion and other coastal hazards through the preservation of beaches and shorelines, preservation
of environmental amenities, less pollution, higher quality development, better utilization of
 "sunk" costs and investments, better fit of supply and demand, greater awareness of local needs
and opportunities, and less uncertainty regarding future development patterns.

      In a study conducted by the National Coastal Resources Research and Development
Institute in conjunction with the University of North Carolina's Center for Urban and Regional
Studies entitled, "Valuing Coastal Zone Management" (1990), the authors found that in 22 of 24
states in the survey with coastal management programs, coastal Gross National Product (GNP)
increased relative to CZMA expenditures, and that each $1 of coastal zone management spending
was associated with an increase of as much as $37 in coastal GNP due to coastal dependent
activities, $1.50 in coastal GNP due to coastal-linked activities, and up to $650 in coastal GNP
due to coastal service activities. While not concluding that coastal zone program expenditures
caused a specific increase in coastal GNP, the study did conclude that at the least, "the statistical
results suggest a positive relationship between dynamic coastal zone programs and dynamic
coastal economies."

      Potential economic benefits can include higher sales, greater demand for facilities and
services, increased property values, and heightened satisfaction with the physical environment.
Prudent coastal management, therefore, results in a balance between conservation of irreplaceable0
or difficult to replace natural resources and economic needs like jobs, housing, recreation, and
commerce. The TCMP policies that enhance protection of coastal resources and improve bay and
estuarine water quality will provide both short- and long-term enhancement of commercial and
recreational fishing economies dependent on these renewable resources, as well as provide the
foundation for long-term profitability for coastal tourism, ecotourism, recreation, and other
industries dependent on the continuance and enhancement of environmental amenities such as
clean water, clean beaches, and healthy wetlands. As a result, the implementation of the TCMP
should foster a more diverse and stable economic base.

      Some of the TCMP's socio-economic impacts are institutional in nature. Overall, these
impacts are positive. Developers and conservationists are both calling for more predictability and
consistency in land and water use decisions. Without the coordination provided by the TCMP,
duplication and conflict among numerous Federal, state, and local authorities increase the
uncertainty about the nature and timing of development that will be permitted in the future.
Cooperation among all levels of government is an objective and requirement of both the TCMP
and CZMA. The TCMP's uniform coastal policies, permit assistance program, and consistency
review of Federal agency decisions and state agency rulemaking and permitting provide an
enhanced degree of predictability and consistency, while allowing adequate flexibility to address
unique circumstances or emerging issues. The establishment of the Coastal Coordination Council,
the Executive Committee, and other TCMP entities to apply the uniform coastal policies will

Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 56                      August 1996








 considerably improve fragmented and overlapping management of coastal resources, enhance
   effciecyand provide added predictability and consistency to decision-making.
      Implementation of the TCMP should result in a net reduction in government costs. There
may be some added cost to government to implement the program. However, these should be
minimal because the TCMP essentially coordinates existing programs and policies rather than
creating new ones. Additional costs could be incurred by providing increased permit assistance to
applicants or assistance to local governments for implementing beach and dune policies. These
costs can be offset by ï¿½306 funds if the state chooses to do so.

      On the other hand, local, state, and Federal expenditures of tax dollars for disaster relief or
replacement of infrastructure resulting from damages from coastal flooding, erosion and wind
damage should be reduced. Reductions in expenditures should accrue from enhanced protection
of natural protective features as a result of the implementation of policies related to dune
protection and construction on or adjacent to beaches. The TCMP should also reduce the number
of structures exposed to coastal hazards through implementation of policies related to the
elevation and flood proofing of structures in critical dune areas, restrictions on development of
some infrastructure on barrier islands, restrictions on private shore-hardening structures and
consideration of impacts on down drift beaches and shorelines from the construction of other
navigation and shore-hardening structures.

      Implementation of the TCMIP should also result in positive impacts regarding public input
into government decision-making. The public involvement in the development of the TCMP has
been extensive. In addition, the program provides for substantial ongoing public involvement in
program implementation through the state and Federal consistency review procedures, existing
state procedures, and the expected establishment of an advisory council. Public participation in
major program decisions and in general program implementation, through public notice and
comment provisions, public hearings, as well as the establishment of a public advisory committee
is provided.

     Implementation of the TCMP should result in net positive impacts on certain coastal natural
resources also. In addition to improved government coordination, significant positive short- and
long-term benefits to coastal resources should result from implementation of enhanced state
policies applicable to wetlands and other aquatic resources and beaches and dunes.
Implementation of the program will also result in moderate to significant positive impacts to
submerged lands and benthic organisms, water quality and circulation patterns in coastal bays and
estuaries, and coastal hazard areas.

     The impacts are expected to be positive because, like NEPA, these policies generally call
for the avoidance of adverse impacts where possible, the minimization of adverse impacts in all
cases, and remediation of or compensation for any unavoidable damage to important coastal
natural resources. These TCM[P policies that deal with protection of wetlands and other aquatic


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 57                      August 1996









resources include the critical areas policy, the dredging and dredged material placement policy,
and the policy on development in the beach/dune system.

      The critical areas and dredging policies will result in net positive impacts on critical areas,
which are coastal wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, tidal sand and mud flats, oyster reefs,
and hard substrate reefs. These policies include an overall policy of "no net loss" of critical areas
through requirements to restrict impacts from non-water dependent uses, prohibit "significant"
adverse impacts, require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts, and allowing the
development of mitigation banks.

      The TCMvP dredging and dredged material placement policy goes on to establish a
sequential priority system for the disposal of dredged material. The preferred sequence is: (1) the
beneficial use of dredged material, (2) contained upland disposal, (3) other contained disposal,
and (4) open-water disposal in non-productive water bottoms. This policy should reduce the
amount of dredged material that traditionally has been disposed of in unconfined, open-water sites
and moreover should increase the extent of some coastal habitats.

      While the implementation of the TCMP will not halt al adverse impacts to wetlands and
other critical areas, it establishes a policy framework for more effectively ensuring that any
adverse impacts are minimal, limited in scope, short-term in duration, and offset by other positive
environmental impacts. Additionally, the policies could result in an increase in wetlands from the
beneficial use of dredged materials. Application of these policies may result in an incremental
increase in development costs. However, the TCMP includes provisions and processes to avoid i
disruptions from those costs. For example, application of the dredging policy to dredging of
federally maintained waterways is governed by the October 1994 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Council and the Corps. This agreement provides that changes in dredging practices
are not implemented until there has been an opportunity to secure any additional funding needed
to implement them.

      The TCMP policies will also enhance the protection of the beach dune system. The TCMvP
policies require activities in critical dune areas to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to critical
dune systems and require creation or restoration of dunes for any unavoidable adverse impacts. In
these areas, the policies prohibit activities that would result in material damage to dunes or dune
vegetation. In addition the policies will mitigate activities that result in coastal erosion and loss of
beaches by prohibiting private parties from constructing seawalls and grains on the beach or
within 200 feet of the line of vegetation in critical dune areas.

     As stated above, the dredging and dredged material placement policy includes provision on
beneficial use of dredged material. A high priority for beneficial use is restoration or protection of
coastal shores and beaches. This will protect coastal property from erosion and storms. This, in
turn, maintains the value of coastal property, enhances coastal tourism, and preserves the integrity
of significant elements of the coastal economy.


Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 111- 58                      August 1996








E.   Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects

      The probable effects of TCMP implementation will, on the whole, be environmentally
beneficial. With or without the program, coastal development will occur, some of which could
lead to adverse environmental impacts on coastal habitats and ecosystems. However, with the
program in place, Texas can seek to balance the conservation of coastal resources with the
recognized need for rational economic growth.

      With or without the program, adverse impacts associated with the siting of maj or facilities
for purposes of defense, transportation, and energy needs in which both the state and Federal
governments have an interest, will continue. It is important to note, however, that under the
TCMP and related Federal laws (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act), the State and Federal
agencies responsible for such projects will evaluate the projects for their impacts on the natural
coastal environment. Required in that evaluation is the balanced consideration of the national
interest, local economy, and coastal natural resources.
































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11- 59                      August 1996









F.   RelationshiD between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and
      Enhancement of Lorng-Term Productivitv

      Approval of the TCNVI will likely restrict some local, short-term uses of the environment.
However, it will also provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and benefits provided
by the Texas coast will be available for future use and enjoyment by more effectively
administering existing resource protection laws.

      The TCMP recognizes that, in the short term, some coastal-dependent developments have
adverse consequences on coastal resources, but that they may still have to be located in the coastal
zone to protect the inland environment as well as help provide for orderly economic development
and meet the national interest. However, the program policies will, in most cases, allow Texas to
make development decisions that avoid where possible, minimize, and in some cases compensate
for these adverse impacts.

      Regarding the long-term use of the environment, the TCMI recognizes the coastal zone as
a delicately balanced ecosystem; establishes a process of balanced management of coastal
resources; allows growth to continue while protecting key resources; and provides a framework
which can protect regional, state and national interests by assuring the maintenance of the
long-term productivity and economic vitality of coastal resources necessary for the well-being of
the public. Beneficial changes will Riely promote avoidance of long-term costs to the public
and a diminished quality of life resulting from the misuse of coastal resources.
























Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part 11- 60                       August 1996









G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

      The only irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources that will result directly from
the approval of the Texas program is the commitment of state and Federal funds and personnel for
the purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of the program. It is presumed that irretrievable
and irreversible commitments of economic and environmental resources will occur during the
implementation of the Texas program. This program is designed to balance the need for
development with the need for the protection and enhancement of coastal environmental resources
by avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the consequences of coastal development on resources
such as wetlands and shallow water marine habitats.

      The program ensures that any such proposed activities which commit coastal resources are
subjected to as comprehensive a review as individual actions and as actions contributing to the
cumulative impacts taking place on coastal resources. Such review will ensure that those
irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources which are undertaken under the TCMP are
made with full awareness of the consequences of those commitments.































Texas Coastal Management Program Final EIS    Part III- 61                    August 1996