Introduction
Governments usually have various agencies that are put in place to help safeguard several aspects that are important to the welfare of their citizens. In the US several ones are tasked with the mandate of making sure that the environment is not destroyed. As such, these agencies always need to be informed of any project that one intends to do so that the project’s impact on the environment can be assessed. The assessment is usually done and then an Environmental impact statement (EIS) is written pointing out the project’s impact (Antonello and Adrian). The mandate of foreseeing that the document is compiled based on the set guidelines usually rests on either the federal or local government. For instance, through federal laws, the government is mandated to ensure that certain projects provide the EIS document for approval to initiate or commence a project. EIS usually aims to enlighten the public about the work that is to be conducted based on the decisions made by the policymakers and the community leaders. The document is of importance in the conservation of the environment. It contains several sections that encompass every aspect of the environment that might be impacted by the proposed action. The document is not focused on highlighting only the negative aspects of the project but also the positive ones.
Federal EIS content is usually under the jurisdiction of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is an executive branch of the federal government. They are tasked with regulating and enforcing the rules stipulated under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Geneslaw). The Act dictates that actions that may significantly impact the quality of human environments must be assessed before being given the green light for commencement. In line with NEPA laws, the sections of federal EIS are well-drafted to consider every aspect of the environment. A typical EIS document is usually lengthy, with more than 100 pages (Middleton). The availability of a table of contents perusing through the more than 100 pages is usually an easy task. Besides, the table of content simplifies the task of identifying a section of someone’s interest, especially when one wants to point out the proposed action’s neglect. In most cases, it is usually useful for civic action or classroom discussion. The document has four sections that are usually to be arranged in a logical sequence for easy understanding.
Section 1 introduces the proposed action and why the project is to be undertaken and its purpose. Having an idea of what a project looks like and how it will impact a certain community is usually a vital aspect of any project before its commencement. For instance, the flooding in Texas has always ravaged several parts of the state (Kim and Yunmi.). As such, if the state or the federal government proposes a project that will help mitigate the situation, then no matter how industrious that project may be, it has to be analyzed, and an EIS document is submitted. Often, we are always naĂŻve about what is happening around us, especially when it is a project that one knows will have little impact on everyday life. This section of the EIS document outlines the importance of being concerned about any project going on in one’s neighborhood and thus why the document outlines the proposed action, its purpose, and the need since no one knows what will happen tomorrow.
Section 2 delves deeper into what EIS is all about. The section describes the environment that is to be affected by the proposed project. It provides the foundation for understanding the current environmental situation about the proposed action. For instance, in the case of Texas’s occasional flooding, this section describes how the flooding has always been devastating to several Texas residents. Properties of many have been destroyed while others have lost their lives and as such many have been left destitute. Once the aspect of how devastating the problem is to be solved is addressed, the statement relates to the proposed action. This section is usually broad since it seeks to make the concerned authorities understand the proposed action’s need. As such, this section by far acts as a watchdog against the misappropriation of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
The document’s section 3 is a continuation of section 2. In this section, a range of alternatives to the proposed action are usually brought into the limelight as dictated by the NEPA law (Huffington et al.). In many instances, there is usually a no-action alternative. The alternative that is always there is understanding how the environment in question would be impacted if no action would be taken. For instance, would the concerned authorities decline to accept the proposed action and let Texas people continue to bear the wrath of flooding? No, unless there is another alternative. People rooting for the proposed action normally look at all the angles while considering aspects that may build or destroy their proposed action and thus be rejected. As such, it can be logically understood why there are usually no action alternatives.
Section 4 in the EIS document is usually dependent on the road that will have been agreed upon in section 3. Thus if everything in section 3 is airtight and there isn’t any room for fixing an alternative, then section 4 comes into action with the focus being on one agenda. The section usually analyzes each of the proposed actions if there were alternatives. The analysis includes assessing the impacts of the proposed activity on the endangered or threatened species, plants, and animals. If the impact is dire, this usually leaves the environmental authorities with no option but to consider looking for a more environmentally friendly alternative. Some species are rare, and thus, they need to be protected in every way possible. The other analysis is on the impact that the proposed action will have on air and water. The two are essential for our survival on this planet, and thus, tampering with them in the name of helping the people is unacceptable (BOEM). The analysis also encompasses the historical and cultural sites, particularly sites of significance for indigenous peoples. The proposed action is supposed to devise ways by which these sites are to be conserved or even upgraded.
The economic and social impacts that the proposed action will have on communities in the environment are also analyzed. The aspects to be looked at include property values, businesses, aesthetics considerations, housing stock, and the noise that is to be expected. The cost and the schedule of the proposed actions are also considered. Sometimes the proposed action may look good on paper, but in reality, there is nothing to smile about, especially when it comes to matters concerning the environment. If the budget is tight, on many occasions, choosing to sideline the impact of the proposed action on the surrounding is usually the number option. This section ensures that isn’t the case by ensuring that the proposed action’s budget aligns with what is intended to be done.
The other section is the consultation and coordination section that focuses on how the government, public, and individuals were consulted to ensure that their interests are considered (BOEM). The section majorly summarizes the public’s comments when drafting EIS and the project’s responses to the comments. The other types of information included in this section included describing the public participation process, including details of public hearings and the scoping meetings. The outcome of any consultation with the appropriate Federal Agencies concerning the possible impact of the proposed action on endangered or threatened species is also included. The sections also list the groups that were involved in the provision of EIS copies.
Although not applicable to every project, EIS may include additional topics on financial plans, plans for complying with any additional required federal, local, or state permits. An elaborate environmental mitigation plan can also be added. The last section of the document is the appendices. The section contains a variety of technical reports that support the analysis of the expected impacts. The reports included are usually dependent on the type of activity that is to be carried in the area of interest.
Summary
As a lead agency in proposing improvements to be done on Texas roadways, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has been instrumental in bringing sanity on many roads in Texas. Congestion management, safety enhancement, and improved mobility and operational efficiency in Texas have all been realized through TxDOT. The agency is again in the process of making a remarkable landmark by forwarding a proposal to the relevant authorities about the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP). The project involves upgrading the current I-45 roadway to four managed express (MAX) lanes on the interstate highway. Thus, based on that proposal, there is the need for EIS to be carried out in a bid to give the proposed action a clean bill of health, thereby facilitating its implementation.
Purpose and Need
The congestion that is always witnessed on North Houston highway during peak and off-peak periods has necessitated the need for action to be taken to try and solve the matter. Based on the projected population and economic growth of the area, the existing road network is expected to be strained, and thus, there is a need for action to be taken before that happens. The proposed North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP) is an industrious project that is pegged on solving the congestion problem, especially in Harris County (Houston City). With the inclusion of the eight central counties of the Houston-Galveston Area Council region, the area’s population is expecting an increase of 3.7 million people by 2040 (Karaye). Besides the population issue, there is also the need to improve the road network’s stormwater drainage in some areas that are normally affected during heavy rainfall events. Thus, the purpose of the proposed NHHIP is to assist with the management of the projected transportation problems and thereby improve mobility and safety.
Project Background
A series of planning studies were conducted with the concerned road authorities in Harris County to identify and address transportation needs in the North Hardy Corridor. The highway extends approximately 30 miles, from South of Downtown Houston, in Harris County, Texas, to near the Woodlands in Montgomery County, Texas. The road covers areas between I-45 and Hardy Toll Road North of Beltway 8 North. In the east, the highway extends to Hardy Toll Road, which includes the George Bush International Airport. As such, the corridor stretches over a vast area.
Proposed Action
The proposed NHHIP that is being evaluated in this EIS is improving the roadway capacity focused on addressing highway transportation needs. The improvement is concentrated in portions of the North-Hardy Corridor that extends from the south to Downtown Houston to Beltway 8 North. The proposed NHHIP study area was based on North-Hardy Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report. The North-Hardy Planning studies, whose completion was in November 2005, relied partly on H-GAC’s 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The re-evaluation of the proposed NHHIP was based on more recent traffic and demographic data.
Need for Proposed Action
Various needs necessitated the proposed transportation improvements in the NHHIP area. The existing road facility provides inadequate capacity for existing and future traffic demands, thereby resulting in longer traveled times, congestion, and reduced mobility. Another reason is that it is projected that by 2035 the average daily traffic volumes will increase by approximately 33 to 39 percent for sections I-45 to Beltway 8 North. The traffic volume in other sections of the highway will also record an approximate increase of 15% (TxDOT). Therefore, if nothing is done, these road sections will witness serious traffic and severe congestion by 2035. Another reason is that I-45 has always been designated as an evacuation route for the region.
As it is currently, evacuation effectiveness along the corridor is limited and thus if a hurricane were to hit now, many would experience difficulty trying to vacate the area. The road also has some safety concerns in some portions whose design does not meet the current roadway design standards. There are also roadway design deficiencies that include inadequate stormwater drainage in some locations whereby intense rainfall causes high water levels, thereby rendering the road impassable, and there are no outside lanes.
Congestion
In various states and localities, the level of system performance deemed acceptable usually varies based on the type of transportation facility, geographic location, and time of the day. The congestion may sometimes be due to excess travel demand, a change in the roadway’s capacity, and the number of commuters traveling during peak travel times (Huston and Xia). Accidents or bad weather conditions may also result in congestion. Many crashes normally happen in places of heavy congestion.
The I-45 is a major transportation facility that serves the Houston metropolis area and its environs. Houston is the fourth-largest city in the US. The city’s bulging population is expected to increase by 3.7 million people by 2040, with 1.5 million jobs created (Cooper and Sedgwick). There are several travel destinations such as Texas Medical Center, Texas Southern University, and the University of Houston along the road. Greenspoint area, ExxonMobil Houston campus, and The Woodlands are also other destinations. The road also links three major regional airports; Ellington, George Bush, and Hobby airports. As such, I-45 is a very busy road that is always congested in the peak periods, and thus with the projections on employment and population growth, the travel demand for the road will continue to increase. With the increase, if no improvements are initiated, then Texas residents, especially those of Harris County, should brace themselves for heightened congestion. The heightened congestion will be witnessed mostly in the peak periods. This will necessitate increased traffic delays and unnecessary diversions onto the surrounding local streets. The congestion is further intensified by bottlenecks, merging traffic, and weaving to access entrance and exit ramps.
Safety
In the engineering profession, safety is usually esteemed and given much priority than anything else. Reports have indicated that traffic crashes cost the people of Texas approximately $35 billion annually in lost wages, motor vehicle damage, insurance costs, incurred costs in emergency management, productivity, and medical care (Crossley). The crashes on the highways considerably lead to a lot of congestion in the region. The expected population and economic boom in the region will increase congestion, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the system that will impact safety. As stated in the Texas Department of Public Safety records, a total of 5,213 crashes with 30 fatal crashes were witnessed on I-45 road from 2016-2018 (Crossley). According to the department, the number has always been on the rise, and thus, this points out that there is a need for something to be done hastily.
Emergency Evacuations
Emergency evacuation is another safety issue for the Houston region. In the event of a major storm, hurricane, or chemical spill in the Houston-Galveston region, the I-45 is usually the only evacuation route available. During Hurricane Harvey in 2017, there was an attempt by close to 3 million to evacuate the region, and these attempts resulted in stopped traffic for miles on major arterial freeways (Wei). A section of the I-45 around North Main Street was flooded during the heavy rainfall. As a result, the road capacity was significantly reduced, thereby making the process of evacuation difficult. The main freeway lanes at that location had poor drainage. Besides the North Main street location, the road still has three primary locations where flooding/drainage problems occur. The current TxDOT requires that storm sewers draining to interstate highways to have an operational period of a 10-year design storm event.
The addition of capacity to the I-45 road, especially lanes that are flexible in handling operation, will increase the road’s carrying capacity. As such, this will go a long way in providing efficiency in evacuation capabilities. Upgrading the road to current design standards will also improve safety and operations during normal and emergency times.
Roadway Design
The current existing roadway facility does not conform to the current TxDOT design standard. Narrow lanes, the shoulders are either narrow or non-existent, low bridge clearance, and several obsolete structures all point out the negative impact on transport safety and operations. The road needs to have standard lane widths with adequate sight distance and clearances to ensure motorists’ safety and comfort, and the inner shoulders offer a place of refuge for disabled vehicles. Roadways that are not able to meet these design standards are not safe for anyone, including pedestrians (Batouli et al.). Besides that, the road is in dire need of pavement rehabilitation.
Proposed Actions and Alternatives
The proposed NHHIP purposes are the implementation of a system that is integrated for transportation improvements. The system is supposed to manage traffic congestion in the NHHIP area by rooting for additional lanes to improve the road’s capacity. The additional lanes will expand transit and carpool opportunities with two-way. As such there will be all-day service on MAX lanes and easy access to recreational areas along the road. Capacity expansion for emergency evacuations, upgrading current road design with auxiliary lanes, and shoulders to improve safety and operations are some of the proposed actions centered on the project. Congestion, enhanced safety, and improved mobility are key areas that will have the ultimate project focus.
Alternatives Analysis
The various concerned road authorities in Texas collaborated on a series of planning studies to identify and address transportation needs in North-Hardy Corridor. The exercise was conducted alongside elected officials representing the corridor’s constituency and various public agencies before conducting the EIS. The input and feedback received from the meetings and workshops held during the planning studies were integrated into the technical tasks of defining and evaluating the corridor alternative transportation improvements. According to the project, the recommended alternative for the improvements of the highway was the addition of four lanes between Downtown Houston and Beltway 8 North to the Interstate Highway 45.
Development of Alternatives
TxDOT has considered a range of alternatives for the proposed project by the 40 Code of Federal Regulations. The other reasonable options that were identified, and evaluated, also would satisfy the identified need and purpose of the project that had been proposed. The proposed alternatives included the No-Build Alternative that serves as the standard against which the other alternatives are based.
For the facilitation of conceptual design and analysis of alternatives, the project was portioned into three segments. The first segment was the I-45 and Hardy Toll Road from Beltway 8 to I-160. The second segment was I-45, and the future Hardy Toll Road from I-610 to I-10 and segment 3 was I-45 from I-10 to I-45, and it was later termed as Downtown Loop System. The alternatives included a universe of other options, preliminary alternatives, reasonable alternatives, proposed recommended alternatives and recommended alternatives.
Universe of Alternatives
These alternatives included a full range of reasonable and feasible options. These alternatives were divided into three segments, with each segment having several alternatives. The evaluation of these alternatives was conducted independently for each of the segments, and each one was assigned a number that was maintained through all steps of the alternatives analysis.
Affected Environment
Land Use
The different segments of the project will occupy different parcels of land. For instance, the proposed location for segment 1 is vacant developable land. The land is bordered by another vacant proposed as the future site of the Pinto Business Park. Thus, for that segment’s location, no other planned development is proposed. Segment 2 is largely built-out, and it is only four percent available for the project, and there are no planned developments in the location. Segment 3 is also the same as section 2, where only five percent of the property is available for the project. The only difference is that people have been allowed to continue building thanks to the growing city. According to the project, all the land uses that will be impacted directly by the NHHIP will be permanently converted to transport use. The footprint of the elevated portion of the roadway will not be permanently affected.
Community Resources
In the project, the community facilities were spotted within one-half mile of the existing project roadways. Besides that, there was also the evaluation of the community resources about how the project has impacted them. Through field observations and input from residents and the local business owners, the community’s togetherness status was evaluated. Through the elected council and guiding, by-laws members from each neighborhood will help monitor how the community had been impacted.
Economic Condition
Any project usually comes bearing gifts to the community. In Houston, the Houston Metropolitan Area’s (MSA’s) have their economic assets. Economic growth is usually dependent on economic activity at a much broader and regional level. As the city expands and develops, the proposed project area would be diversified with industrial and assortment. The project will also create job opportunities during construction and after. There will also be revenue loss due to the loss of property and sales tax revenues for local jurisdictions (Afonso). This will be caused by converting land to a roadway while displacing businesses providing sales tax revenues. As such, the road may hurt the local economy since the revenue-generating activities have been shut.
Air Quality
Harris County is the county where the proposed NHHIP is built. The construction area is part of the H-GAC and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area that the EPA has designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (Turney and Evan). Thus, anything that will be done in the project will need to conform to the transportation rules (Miller). The project’s impact on air quality will be evaluated based on the regional conformity analysis, quantitative MSAT analysis, and traffic air quality analysis during the final EIS preparation.
Water Resources
The 1972 amendment of the Water Act that saw the name changed to the Clean Water Act (CWA) was vital to ensure that the US’s water sources are safeguarded (Keiser and Joseph). The CWA created a structure that would help regulate pollutant discharges into the waters in the US. The Act also gave the EPA the authority to implement pollution control measures and maintain existing requirements to establish water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. As far as the NHHIP project is concerned, its construction would result in the overall increase of the area’s impervious water cover. This, as such, may result in minor increases in localized runoff contributed by the proposed. The fact that the project is being done in an urban setup, highway runoff will be expected to cause little havoc on areas receiving water. To mitigate these issues, the project will utilize TxDOT Storm Water Management Guidelines for construction activities and instigate temporary measures to contain erosion (Antunes et al.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Based on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the secretary of the interior and the USFWS is assigned the mandate of enforcing and protecting the Act (Henschen and William). The project team members are lovers of animals, and thus the destruction of their habitat is not possible unless it is a must. And if that is the case, they will make sure that they provide the animal with a habitat. Thus, before the construction commences, the team will assess the area if any endangered and threatened species reside in conjunction with the relevant authorities. The assessment and the evaluation will be conducted using USFWS and TPWD lists provided by the federal government (Kelly and Gene). Thus, based on the assessment, the project will have nothing to worry about protecting the threatened and endangered species.
Conclusion
EIS is a tool that helps make decisions concerning a project and highlights the positive and negative impacts that a proposed activity may have on the environment. Alternatives are also usually available if the proposed action has many negative consequences compared to the positive impacts. As far as drafting my EIS is concerned, I did include all the document sections but left out the agency coordination and public involvement. The proposed NHHIP already had different agencies such as the TxDOT, METRO, and the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) in collaboration with other partners such as elected officials representing constituencies in the North-Hardy Corridor that were coordinating well. Thus choosing to talk about their coordination to me felt like redundancy. Each agency has its role to play in the project, and that is well enshrined in the contract document of the project. Choosing to talk about the coordination may also come out as being authoritarian since the document is always based on what needs to be done to accomplish the project without any hurdle easily. Thus, talking about the coordination of the agencies section was not necessary for my EIS document.
Works Cited
Afonso, Whitney B. “The Impact of the Amazon Tax on Local Sales Tax Revenue in Urban and Rural Jurisdictions.” Public Budgeting & Finance, vol. 39, no. 2, 2019, pp. 68-90. Wiley Online Library.
Antonello, Alessandro, and Adrian Howkins. “The Rise of Technocratic Environmentalism: The United States, Antarctica, and the Globalization of the Environmental Impact Statement.” Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 68, 2020, pp. 55-64.
Antunes, Lucas Niehuns, et al. “Environmental Assessment of a Permeable Pavement System Used to Harvest Stormwater for Non-Potable Water Uses in a Building.” Science of the Total Environment vol. 746, 1 Dec. 2020, p. 141087.
Batouli, Mostafa, et al. “Putting sustainability theory into roadway design practice: Implementation of LCA and LCCA analysis for pavement type selection in real world decision making.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 52, May 2017, pp. 289-302.
BOEM. “Environment Impact Statement (EIS) Format and Content Process.” Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2018, Web.
Cooper, Christine, and Shannon Sedgwick. “Los Angeles: People, Industry and Jobs.” Institute for Applied Economics, 2018, Web.
Crossley, Jay. “How Much Do Traffic Crashes Cost the People of Texas?” Farm & City, 2017, Web.
Geneslaw, Howard. “Cleanup of National Priorities List Sites, Functional Equivalence and the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement.” Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, vol. 10, no. 1, 2018, p. 4.
Henschen, Beth, and William P. McLauchlan. “Maintaining the Integrity of Democratic Principles with Congressional Remedies: An Assessment of Petitioning for Rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act.” Public Integrity, 2020, pp. 1-22.
Huffington, Michael P., et al. US Highway 85 Environmental Impact Statement: A Case Study in Stakeholder Engagement. No. 19-04757. 2019.
Houston City. “North Houston Highway Improvement Project.” Planning & Development, 2020, Web.
Huston, Dryver, and Tian Xia. “Mapping, Assessing and Monitoring Urban Underground Infrastructure.” 11th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring. 2017.
Karaye, Ibraheem M. “Estimating Evacuation Shelter Deficits in the Houston–Galveston Metropolitan Area.” Risk Analysis, vol. 40, no. 5, 2020, pp. 1079-1091.
Keiser, David A., and Joseph S. Shapiro. “Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 134, no. 1, 07 Sept. 2018, pp. 349-396.
Kelly, Marty and R Gene. “Effects of Altered Water Quality on Populations of Smalleye Shiner and Sharpnose Shiner in the Upper Brazos River.” Fisheries, vol. 36, 2020. pp. 365-420.
Kim, Hyun Woo, and Yunmi Park. “Urban Green Infrastructure and Local Flooding: The Impact of Landscape Patterns on Peak Runoff in Four Texas Msas.” Applied Geography, vol. 77, 2016, pp. 72-81.
Middleton, Tiffany. “What is an Environmental Impact Statement.” American Bar Association, 2018, Web.
Miller, David J. “Characterizing Elevated Urban Air Pollutant Spatial Patterns with Mobile Monitoring in Houston, Texas.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 4, 2020, pp. 2133-2142.
Turney, John B., and Evan Z. Pearson. “Air Quality: TCEQ Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the HGB Area’s One-Hour and 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Texas Environmental Law Journal, vol. 49, 2019, p. 339.
Zhang, Wei. “Urbanization Exacerbated the Rainfall and Flooding Caused By Hurricane Harvey in Houston.” Nature, vol. 563, no. 7731, 2018, pp. 384-388.