Appendix A
List of Tables/Figures



Appendix A 
List of Tables/Figures 

Figure 1 Regional Map 
Figure 2 Vicinity Map 
Figure 3 Conceptual Design 
Figure 4 Floodplain Map 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL \SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\\ A-1 


Appendix B
E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management 
Eight-Step Planning Process



Appendix B 

E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management Eight-Step Planning Process 
Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management 
Eight-Step Planning Process Summary
West Dietz Creek Drainage Improvement Project


Step 1: Determine whether the Proposed 
Action is located in a wetland and/or the 100year 
floodplain, or whether it has the potential 
to affect or be affected by a floodplain or 
wetland. 
Proje ct Analysis: According to the FHBM for 
the City of Schertz, the project area is within 
the regulated floodplain. The proposed 100year 
Design project would have a beneficial 
effect on the 100-year floodplain. There are no 
wetlands in the project area 
Step 2: Notify public at earliest possible time 
of the intent to carry out an action in a 
floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected 
and interested public in the decision-making 
Project Analysis: An initial public notice was 
posted in the community’s newspaper in 
October 1998 indicating that actions would 
potentially occur in the 100-year floodplain 
and/or wetlands. The City would be required to 
notify the public again prior to construction. 
Step 3: Identify and evaluate practicable 
alternatives to locating the Proposed Action in 
a floodplain or wetland. 
Project Analysis: The following alternatives 
were evaluated: 
Alternative 1: No Action. 
Alternative 2: Proposed Action. Channel 
Improvements on West Dietz Creek- 100-year 
Design. The Proposed Action involves 1.5 
miles of drainage improvements; excavating 
West Dietz Creek to a maximum channel depth 
of 8 feet and a maximum channel bottom width 
of 300 feet. 
Alternative 3: Channel Improvements on West 
Dietz Creek- 50-year Design. This Alternative 
involves 1.5 miles of drainage improvements; 
excavating West Dietz Creek to a maximum 
channel depth of 6.5 feet and a maximum 
channel bottom width of 240 feet. 
Step 4: Identify the full range of potential 
direct or indirect impacts associated with the 
occupancy or modification of floodplains and 
wetlands and the potential direct and indirect 
support of floodplain and wetland development 
that could result from the Proposed Action. 
Project Analysis: 
The No Action Alternative would not affect the 
100-year floodplain. No drainage 
improvements would be undertaken; therefore, 
there would no direct or indirect impacts to 
jurisdictional waters in the project area or the 
floodplain. 
Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, is likely to 
result in minor and temporary impacts 
associated with the occupancy or modification 
of the floodplain. Removal of vegetation is not 
expected to affect the floodplain. In accordance 
with CFR 44 Sec. 9.5, debris removed as part 
of the improvement project would not be 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL\SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\\ B-1 


Appendix B 

E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management Eight-Step Planning Process 
disposed of within a floodplain. Based on the 
February 22, 2002, letter from the USACE, 
Fort Worth District, this Alternative is exempt 
from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 
Therefore, a Department of the Army permit 
would not be required. Mitigation measures 
described in Section 3.1.1 Geology, Seismicity 
and Soils, would minimize the potential 
adverse indirect impacts to Cibolo Creek. The 
improvement of West Dietz Creek would allow 
floodwaters in the upper watershed to pass 
without restriction to Cibolo Creek. A 
beneficial effect to the City would be the 
reduction of the 100-year floodplain and the 
related removal of approximately 100 
structures from the 100-year floodplain. 
Under Alternative 3, no long-term impacts are 
anticipated with this alternative. Mitigation 
measures described in Section 3.1.1 Geology, 
Seismicity and Soils, would minimize the 
potential adverse indirect impacts to the 
floodplain and Cibolo Creek. 
Step 5: Minimize the potential adverse impacts 
to work within floodplains and wetlands to be 
identified under Step 4, restore and preserve 
the natural and beneficial values served by 
wetlands. 
Project Analysis: The following mitigation 
measures would minimize potential adverse 
impacts within the floodplain. The City would 
cover stockpiled soils to help prevent fugitive 
dust and soil erosion. The City would use 
temporary erosion and sediment controls, 
including installation silt fences and/or hay 
bales, hydro-seeding, and the staging of 
construction equipment in existing developed 
or previously disturbed areas, such as paved 
parking lots. Bare soils would be re-vegetated 
with native grasses after construction to 
prevent future soil erosion. In addition, the City 
plans to use concrete velocity dissipaters at 
intervals along the channel to reduce water 
velocities, thereby reducin g the potential for 
sedimentation and soil erosion in the creek 
channel during floods. 
Step 6: Re-evaluate the Proposed Action to 
determine 1) if it is still practicable in light of 
its exposure to flood hazards; 2) the extent to 
which it will aggravate the hazards to others; 
and 3) its potential to disrupt floodplain and 
wetland values. 
Project Analysis: The Proposed Action 
remains practicable based on the flood 
prevention objective. 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL\SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\\ B-2 


Appendix B 

E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management Eight-Step Planning Process 
Step 7: If the agency decides to take an action 

Project Analysis: A public notice will be made 
in a floodplain or wetland, prepare and provide 

based on the decision to proceed with the 
the public with a finding and explanation of 

Proposed Action. At a minimum, this notice 
any final decision that the floodplain or 

shall state a reason for locating the Proposed 
wetland is the only practicable alternative. The 

Action in the floodplain; a description of all 
explanation should include any relevant factors 

significant facts considered in making 
considered in the decision-making process. 

determination; a list of the alternatives 
considered; a statement indicating whether the 
action conforms to state and local floodplain 
protection standards; and a statement indicating 
how the action effects the wetlands and how 
mitigation is achieved. 

Step 8: Review the implementation and post-

Project Analysis: This step is integrated into 
implementation phases of the Proposed Action 

the NEPA process and FEMA project 
to ensure that the requirements of the EOs are 

management and oversight functions. 
fully implemented. Oversight responsibility 
shall be integrated into existing processes. 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL\SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\\ B-3 


Appendix C
Agency Correspondence



Appendix D
Public Notice



Appendix D 
Public Notice 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

Environmental Assessment for Construction of the West Dietz Creek Channel 
Improvements, in the City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas. FEMA-1257-DR-TX 

Interested persons are hereby notified that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
is proposing to assist in the funding of the construction of the West Dietz Creek Channel 
Improvements in the City of Schertz in Guadalupe County, Texas. In accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 
Parts 1500-1508), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of 
FEMA (44 CFR Part 9 and 10), an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to assess 
the potential impacts of the proposed action on the human and natural environment. 

The EA evaluates alternatives that provide for compliance with applicable environmental laws. 
The alternatives to be evaluated include (1) No Action; (2) Construction of the West Dietz Creek 
Channel Improvements- 100-Year Design; and (3) Construction of the West Dietz Creek 
Channel Improvements- 50-Year Design. 

The draft EA is available for review between August 5, 2002 and August 25, 2002, at the Schertz 
Public Library, 608 Schertz Parkway, City of Schertz, Texas 78154 between the hours of 8 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. 

Written comments regarding this action should be directed no later than 5 p.m. August 25, 2002, 
to Ryan Thompson, URS Group, Inc., 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101, Gaithersburg, MD 
20878. Telephone (301) 670-3387. 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL \SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\\ D-1 


Appendix E
Public Comments



Appendix E 
Public Comments 

No public comments were received. 


I:\GAITHERSBURG\89-FEMA4065.00\REPORTS\FINAL\SCHERTZ\FINALEASCHERTZ(9-03-02).DOC\16-SEP-02\ \ E-1