Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-21-2002 Committee Meeting
MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE AUGUST 21, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Engelken at 4:07 p.m. Members of the Committee Present: Chairperson Chuck Engelken, Councilmembers Michael Mosteit and Peter Griffiths Members Absent: None Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: Acting City Manager John Joems and City Secretary Martha Gillett Citizens / Others Present: Bill Scott 2. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PORT OF HOUSTON EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE There were no petitions, remonstrances, communications or citizens and taxpayers wishing to address the Committee. 3. DISCUSS RESPONSE TO REVISED PERMIT APPLICATION #21520 SUBMITTED BY PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY DULY 22, 2002 The response deadline to the Corp of Engineers has been extended to September 5, 2002. Chairperson Engelken stated he feels the City needs to respond. Mr. Engelken noted that Councilmember Griffiths provided written comments to the Committee, outlining their visions of the permit application. Acting City Manager Joerns is concerned about the barrier walls; noting loss of bay breeze, and questioned the effectiveness of walls as noise barriers. The Committee agreed to have Mr. Joems draft a response (points listed below) to circulate among the Committee, and have an additional meeting to review the final draft. ■ Oppose Bayport site and 20 feet barrier wall. ■ Introduce additional concerns in Mr. Griffiths' response. ■ Encourage them to select another site, such as Spillman Island. 4. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. • • Bayport Expansion Opposition Committee Minutes — 8/21/02 (Cont'd) Page 2 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Councilmember Mosteit would like the focus to be on Spillman's Island. Mr. Griffiths feels the City is moving in the right direction, and is being consistent with their opposition to the Bayport site. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee, this meeting was duly adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LA Martha A. Gillett, TRMC City Secretary Passed and approved on this 29th day of August 2002. Chairman Chuck Engelken CL�,-� 0-7� • DRAFT August 26, 2002 Certified Mail Mr. Kerry M. Stanley Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 RE: Response to Public Notice dated July 22, 2002 For Revised Permit Application No. 21520 Dear Mr. Stanley: On behalf of the City of La Porte, please accept, record and file this letter as the City's comments regarding the revision of Permit Application #21520 described in the Public Notice issued on July 22, 2002. Because of changes introduced by Revision #1 and now #2, we believe there should be consideration for a supplemental DEIS because the proposed Bayport Container Project has been substantially altered since it was presented and discussed in the DEIS. Even in the absence of a supplemental DEIS, the public comment period on the DEIS should be reopened and/or at least a public meeting should be conducted to explain these changes in the proposed project. We feel strongly that these actions should be considered because the proposed revisions clearly effect the DEIS evaluation of alternative sites which is the heart of the DEIS. The more notable changes that affect the "analysis of alternatives" are: ■ The acreage of jurisdictional wetlands has been decreased. ■ The total acreage of wetlands has been disclosed. ■ The number of cruise terminal berths and number of cruise ships has been reduced. ■ The land use associated with the cruise terminal has been changed ■ The noise mitigation has changed by introducing a 20-foot tall concrete wall along the north line of the Bayport Channel adjacent to a residential neighborhood (separated only by a pipeline corridor). Aside from and in addition to our belief that a supplemental DEIS is warranted, the City is opposed to the proposed revisions because we are firmly opposed to the Bayport site as evidenced by our January 10, 2002 response to the DEIS. Further manipulation of the Bayport site does not change our view of the analysis of alternative sites contained in the DEIS. In general, our review found that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non -environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for PHA does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. The proposed 20-foot wall is objected to for a number of reaso&s. First, there is no study or evidence to either evaluate or support its potential effectiveness for noise mitigation. • DRAFT 0 Secondly, the wall certainly will interrupt the prevailing southeast breezes that have been enjoyed by �j'V adjacent neighborhoods for years and are a trademark of our community. Third, the presence of a 20-foot wall, approximately 50 feet from the nearby homes may certainly be 615jectionable from the standpoint of visual pollution. When coupled with the loss of bay breezes this proposed mitigation would in fact further compound the negative effects of the proposed Bayport project. While the Community Advisory Group referenced potential mitigation strategies for the North Shore, including possible construction of a noise barrier (wall), they did so based on the premise that additional detailed analysis, beyond that provided by the DEIS, be provided. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this revision. We hope that you concur that a supplemental DEIS should be developed, or at least, further public meetings to better describe these revisions be conducted. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the noise barrier for all facets of environmental issues should be undertaken. In closing, aside from our comments regarding this revision, the City remains opposed to the Bayport site, or any combination including Bayport, because we believe the DEIS reinforces our concerns that this site would have substantial long term negative impacts for our community. Sincerely, Mayor Norman L. Malone Barry Beasley, Councilman At -Large B Peter Griffiths, Councilman At -Large A Mike Mosteit, Councilman District 1 Chuck Engelken, Jr. Councilman District 2 Howard Ebow, Councilman District 3 James Warren, Councilman District 4 Bruce Meismer, Councilman District 6 c: John Joerns, Acting City Manager Knox W. Askins, City Attorney Charlie Young, Councilman District 5 0 0 TJEX��' August 30, 2002 City of La Porte 4 r Established 1899 ,,A\ VIA Fax - (409)766-3931 Certified Mail 70001670 0002 2103 3985 Mr. Kerry M. Stanley Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 RE: Response to Public Notice dated July 22, 2002 For Revised Permit Application No. 21520 Dear Mr. Stanley: On behalf of the City of LaPorte, please accept, record and file this letter as the City's comments regarding the revision of Permit Application #21520 described in the Public Notice issued on July 22, 2002. Because of changes introduced by Revision #1 and now #2, we believe there should be consideration for a supplemental DEIS because the proposed Bayport Container Project has been substantially altered since it was presented and discussed in the DEIS. Even in the absence of a supplemental DEIS, the public comment period on the DEIS should be reopened and/or at least a public meeting should be conducted to explain these changes in the proposed project. We feel strongly that these actions should be considered because the proposed revisions clearly effect the DEIS evaluation of alternative sites which is the heart of the DEIS. The more notable changes that affect the "analysis of alternatives" are: ■ The acreage of jurisdictional wetlands has been decreased. ■ The total acreage of wetlands has been disclosed. ■ The number of cruise terminal berths and number of cruise ships has been reduced. ■ The land use associated with the cruise terminal has been changed ■ The noise mitigation has changed by introducing a 20-foot tall concrete wall along the north line of the Bayport Channel adjacent to a residential neighborhood (separated only by a pipeline corridor). Aside from and in addition to our belief that a supplemental DEIS is warranted, the City is opposed to the proposed revisions because we are firmly opposed to the Bayport site as evidenced by our January 10, 2002 response to the DEIS. Further manipulation of the Bayport site does not change our view of the analysis of alternative sites contained in the DEIS. In general, our review found that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non -environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for Port of Houston Authority does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. bvz W'. Fairmont Fkwy. • La Porte, Texas 77571 9 (281) 471-5020 i ? JUL 2 4 2002 q RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 ('iTV CF!`n c�rn nip Public Notice U.S. Army Corps Permit Application No- 21520(Revised) Of Engineers Date Issued: 22 July 2002 Galveston District Comments Due: 22 August 2002 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICT AND TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PURPOSE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: To inform you of a proposal for work in which you might be interested. It is also to solicit your comments and information to better enable us to make a reasonable decision on factors affecting the public interest. We hope you will participate in this process. AUTHORITY: This application will be reviewed pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. APPLICANT: Port of Houston Authority P.O. Box 2562 Houston, Texas 77252-2562 Telephone 713/670-2592 POC: Charles D. Jenkins LOCATION: The project is located along the Bayport Ship Channel, approximately 30 miles southeast of downtown Houston, in the City of Pasadena, between the cities of Shoreacres and Seabrook, in Harris County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps entitled: League City, Texas and Bacliff, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15, Easting: 305000; Northing: 3277000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a major marine terminal complex on approximately 1,043 acres, along the south side of the Bayport Ship Channel. This development would include facilities for docking, loading and unloading container and cruise ships, container storage areas, an intermodal yard, warehousing facilities, and properties available for light -industrial development. A total of 18.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands exists within the project site. 0 • 31 The applicant has revised their project plans to reduce the number of proposed cruise berths from five to three. This revision results in a reduction in the amount of area proposed to be dredged by 23.0 acres, a reduction in the amount of open water proposed to be filled by 21.3 acres, and a reduction in the amount of dredged material proposed to be placed off -site by 1,045,965 cubic yards. Under this revision, 18.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be filled, 127.3 acres of open water would be dredged, and 3.1 acres of open water would be filled. In addition, the applicant has revised the proposed wetland mitigation plan to include the creation of 66.8 acres of emergent wetlands, enhancement of 12.0 acres of existing wetlands, preservation of 23.7 acres of forested/shrub habitat, and restoration of 71.0 acres of coastal prairie habitat. The entire mitigation site would ultimately be placed under a conservation easement. This mitigation would be performed within a 173.5-acre tract of land located 2.4 miles southwest of the proposed project site and approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the intersection of Red Bluff Road and Bay Area Boulevard. This public notice addresses the application for a Department of the Army permit and does not extend the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was published on 12 November 2001. The comment period on the DEIS ended on 13 March 2002. NOTES: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified. Our evaluation will also follow the guidelines published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). OTHER AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS: Texas Coastal Zone consistency certification is required. The applicant has stated that the project is consistent with the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies and will be conducted in a manner consistent with said Program. STATE WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: This project would result in a direct impact of greater than three acres of waters of the state or 1500 linear feet of streams (or a combination of the two is above the threshold), and as such would not fulfill Tier I criteria for the project. Therefore, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) certification is required. Concurrent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) processing of this application, the TNRCC is reviewing this application under Section 401 of the CWA and in accordance with Title 30, Texas Administrative Code Section 279.1-13 to determine if the work would comply with State water quality standards. By virtue of an agreement between the Corps and the TNRCC, this public notice is also issued for the purpose of 21520 2 advising all known interested persons that there is pending before the TNRCC a decision on water quality certification under such act. Any comments concerning this application may be submitted to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 401 Coordinator, MSC-150, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. The public comment period extends 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. A copy of the public notice with a description of work is made available for review in the TNRCC's Austin office. The complete application may be reviewed in the Corps office. The TNRCC may conduct a public hearing to consider all comments concerning water quality if requested in writing. A request for a public hearing must contain the following information: the name, mailing address, application number, or other recognizable reference to the application; a brief description of the interest of the requester, or of persons represented by the requester; and a brief description of how the application, if granted, would adversely affect such interest. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES: The staff archaeologist has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, lists of properties determined eligible, and other sources of information. The following is current knowledge of the presence or absence of historic properties and the effects of the undertaking upon these properties: The proposed project has been initially reviewed for potential impacts to historic properties. To date, a cultural resources investigation (Prewitt & Associates Report No. 45, January 2000) has been conducted for the existing facility and including the proposed expansion property area. The results of the investigation indicate that certain portions of the facility project area contain the potential for having prehistoric and historic sites - with at least three historic sites, 41 HR831-833 having been identified for the project area. However, the proposed mitigation site has not been fully investigated for potential impacts to both recorded and potential archaeological sites - and will have to be fully considered in the review process for this project. In addition, our records indicate that the likelihood is not high for the proposed project to encounter significant historic shipwreck sites given the previous dredging and development in the area; however, the proposed permit action does include work within Galveston Bay state tracts that are listed sensitive for potential historic shipwrecks. Therefore, all project plans under this permit will have to be fully addressed and resolved for potential impacts to both terrestrial and underwater cultural resources in consultation with the COE and SHPO archaeological staff. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: Preliminary indications are that no known threatened and/or endangered species or their critical habitat will be affected by the proposed work. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat consultation requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse 21520 s impact on Essential Fish Habitat or Federally managed fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Our final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW FACTORS: This application will be reviewed in accordance with 33 CFR 320-330, the Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, and other pertinent laws, regulations and executive orders. The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors, which may be relevant to the proposal, will be considered: among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. SOLICITATION OF COMMENTS: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State, and local agencies and officials, Indian tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. This public notice is being distributed to all known interested persons in order to assist in developing facts upon which a decision by the Corps of Engineers may be based. For accuracy and completeness of the record, all data in support of or in opposition to the proposed work should be submitted in writing setting forth sufficient detail to furnish a clear understanding of the reasons for support or opposition. PUBLIC HEARING: The Corps held a public hearing regarding the proposed project and the DEIS on 12 December 2001. The public hearing was held at the George R. Brown Convention Center, at 1001 Avenida de las Americas, in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Prior to the close of the comment period any person may make a written request for an additional public hearing setting forth the particular reasons for the request. The District Engineer will determine whether the issues are substantial and should be considered in the permit decision. If an additional public hearing is warranted, all known interested persons will be notified of the time, date, and location. 21520 4 0 CLOSE OF COMMENT PERIOD: All comments pertaining to this Public Notice must reach this office on or before 22 August 2002. CLOSEDATE. Extensions of the comment period may be granted for valid reasons provided a written request is received by the limiting date. If no comments are received by that date, it will be considered that there are no objections. Comments and requests for additional information should be submitted to: Kerry M. Stanley Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 409-766-6345 Phone 409-766-6301 Fax DISTRICT ENGINEER GALVESTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 21520 5 s�--tx-t 1 of 5-� vts G 5 Q --. -. PETRO UNITED 880 ° 00 9�1$ 0000 0 0000 4ELA MEN iriuvwr RMNan By. Mar Data • LOd4wOPQ Antrsws NI Nswnsm, MC I AI( Pow 0.5-24 02 2 IFD a5_za_oz NsthNyns A K—dy 6 A—clstss ��Aay6"Enghwsrtng Corp. LL Oss 6 Jenson, PrYns IMsnsts ,ram,�lw. Ultsoh Consoltmts Ws. RE II ACIRES J _\ Y PORTIONS OF LAYOUT SCHEMES SHOWN ARE ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY. SCHEMES ARE FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED AS NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY. THIS LAYOUT PLAN IS INTENDED MERELY AS A PLANNING DEVICE AND IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO OMIT THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED IN SAID PLAN AREA. 1200 Y (HALF SIZE) ® O S II I'I 1 ENTRY PR CHECK ICUefOAQ.A S O GROUNDED C NNER lul IW'I SEUREAU 1,AOPiA0� CTEC �N R+Is PLAN sroRACT (FfTO 1® PAITKING W PREDATE BUILD NG Q ENTRY INSPECTION BOOTHS k GATEHOUS � IS NOT FOR CROUNOW EMPTY AVER TD TI ® WH GE REEF PICK e I I Q MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BUILDING f L ® WHEELED REEFER STORAGE N2NWISTRATION BUILDING �^ ? 0 RTO PARKING AREA I Q EOUIPIA:NT PARKING PROJEACRE�, rG�= © POV PARKING — PROPOSED BUILDINGS ' (' AMENITIES BUILDING vANArF ` 30 ACRCREES e CONTAINER FREIGHT srAnaN ® GRADE SEPARATION '®I O CONTAINER TARO 37e AS _ WITH TRUCK LOADING DOCK 1 I GATE FACILITIES :' 71 AGES SIGHT AND SOUND BARPoEA BERM Q EXIT PRECt1ECK/IXSPECIION BOOMS INTERMODAL YARD � 123 ACRES PIPELINE EASEMENT �� ---� ® IHTFRNOOAL YARD ANCILLARY SERVICES (BLDGS. k PARKING) 47 ACRES GO HIGH MIST LIGHT POE // © WATER TANK CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION /e ACRES 9 ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION INDUSTRIAL CD -DEVELOPMENT AREA 62 ACtFS ti �•_ -3;f SN,LE LIGHT POLE PIPELINE EASEMENT CRUISE TERMINAL ee ACRES fi Do0 DOUBLE LIGHHT POLE ® CRUISE TERMINAL CRUISE 00-DEVELOPMENT AREA 43 ACRES PROPOSED RAIL TRACK CONTAINER TERMINAL ACCESS ROAD WITH BUFFER ZONE PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS TO OLD HIGHWAY 146 12e ACRES ® CRUISE TERMINAL ACCESS ROAD RETENTION PONDS NOT IN BUFFER ZONE 2e ACRES BAYPORT TERMINAL COMPLEX TOTAL © CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION1,04J ACRES B PROCESSING CENTER PROPOSED RETEN110N/DETENTION POND IMPROVED AND NEW ROAO/RAIL R.O.W. p0 ACRES CRUSE CO -DEVELOPMENT AREA EXISTING DRILL STE DEVELOPMENT AREA TOTAL. 1.133 ACRES f 6 ; ® MARINE EMERGENCY BUILDING a DOMESTIC RAILYARD GATECONTAF BAYPORT TERMINAL CONTAINER CAPACITY yI' ® GRADE ER YARDSEPARATION ACCESS UNDER .%/ GLADE SEPARARON (23' CLEAR) ml CONTAINERS 7000' CONTAINER TERMINAL WHARF WHEELED 13,e,7B2 ®CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION GATE WHEELED REEFERS ],046 018 1WHEELED23 ® LEAKING CONTAINER STATION GROUNDED CONTAINERS O 3 HIGH 33.714 20.310 ® SIGHT AND SOUND BARRIER BERM GROUNDED EMPTIES O 4 HIGH 36,12E 21,76E Y ® GATE BUILDINGS TOTAL CAPACITY N,444 50,375 9 ® � LIFT PRELIMINARY JIVD Group o.awa er ACalll 1Cwpm TV% f�, �o09TON�GT BAYPORT TERMINAL COMPLEX 6nait °^• ]00 Laknlda Dr, UO� F.., ` 1 / b•��•a Br o4 oA CONCEPTUAL OakO^0, G194612 `/v PLANNING AND ANALYSIS MASTER PLAN WITH 5,0-017-546fi uWiec .apa..ma ,�.°N.a..�,., ,,,,^ka �••°• D°°• $ Y 3 CRUISE BERTHS 5f0436a464 tax Wy Dale „ I) I� `y0 �9 PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY P,,;,•, „-m,,, SM1,,, „•m,,, —Jwdg..p.cOm „��1MOFFATTkMCHOL °STDI+2 HOUSTON, TEW W97070 A ER+IGE:CRARE RNL GGHT.WR —11 , FOR IB NOE AM'S - N1IPuuN —20Y FOR IS NUE 'MIS - IW... I,,-737' FOR ]] WE R3' -:- —7!!/— LID or Boo. I 145' WIDE, 18-WIDE VESSEL I i 0 SI m O 7O or A- 54, Z �17.9 WLLW 5'-0' _ 36' °� 97 __ uLIW WA BAP�E 1BM0C O' R - �' (-+U' PLUS -Y OLERORCGE) uiIII1III� Y 5' 225' SETBACK EDGE OF RUnnELJ u FACE OF FACE OF FENDER SECTION CONCRETE (FIXED) (APPROX.) CRANE/SHIP DRAWING N. T. S. Rsriaun B7 Ayp4 DA, L'LAS7 CPVi3 Snip D') LMGCiI CRU1�3 1Hir') CCn —ER SHIP PRELIMINARY J.H. �1JUy1VN 4p� LA 11 Uh 1 I J. FMIIVL'1L UUMYLEX 87•• W ---- z r.sl u. loAPPfavtld OU W.W. °4 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE BAYPORT Bz Pia „umD.r„ mbr AnDltrcture wk Gnnd Are - y uu.»d,a '� CHANNEL PR�A+ rv97o)orv57o)o 0 �"1oI 9491a PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY CLEARANCE �'ront� i4mi.gTF1N TRY Ac c �_ ..._ '2 _L c L I d N d I III III III '1 ,I ill I I 'II 1 II l II I I 1 , II II I 1 II WHARF CROSS SECTION I GEE & JENSON w••.•.e .,,d,..a..n..,.e. — 12 e 0 '2 7. !0 ~'lOCkw000 0.n0Ilwe df HeMnOT In0 T *,-,,T BAYPORT TERMINAL COMPLEX "W""'1p`J BAYPORT CRUISE TERMINAL No.�elue R.nnnoy ° ASScc,41.. PLANNING AND ANALYSIS�,w„� ,. �...., A.Ilts Eng—ong Caro Wmnne4.n.ee44CO'"'. -WHARF CROSS—SECTION 6ea k Jensen eipnY" ela Nss PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY «n Co Wl.nt, NICHOHOUSTON TEXAS 1 — 0 P ; dl. I. p.rN 5/e4/t— ef hwrt e..lpr �l .umb DCM 3 2 L4 -4, s �I I IIII..._.�.�- I ' oil 1 / 1„ 111 � 0 um► I i DZRQ wtj#4j tac;nixaI of ►tea PROPOSED OUTFALL SfTE 1 ?� ' PROPOSED OUTFALL �----- --- SITE 2 PROPOSED OUTFALL SITE 3 1po r`-k of ►�1o.+.s-Fov� /�V.'�l�.oc-�'} / �2 "t S oT 5 44 6 s SIDE CHANNEL O 3 c=20' DODO `1 O0O0O O000 00000 O O O O O O 0 W a 0000 -0000 °000,000001 ° 000Q00000 00,�\0 00000 O-C,``++c' 00000 °°o°c�°o°o° o°o°c�°o°o O000g00° -f' o v4O-�% 'O O 000 0- AREA IMPACTED 12,158 SQ.FT.= 0.28 AC. LEGEND f' FLOW DIRECTION 00o EXTENT OF EROSION PROTECTION (RIPRAP) RR d V' 0 x d� 0 0 w FZ4JJ 1 0 I; i a NOttTY z 0 w s a c MAP-= 0A n TM IIV i r i d 0 0 0-0-0 s �000�0�0000 p M Lo 00000f 0000 H s 0 0�0�0�0 �1 ! z 00000°�0ocr 0o0 E-4 o`O�0 0OCO o0o0 o— & ? --O q & 9-0 00000 o AREA IMPACTED 0 O 0* O 0 c 0 0�_ 00000 100000 1 11,700 SQ.FT. = 0.3 AC. a -zo' 000000100000 � NORI}Y z 3 SIDE CHANNEL � 0-0-0-0 O �, OLEGEND O � � - FLOW . DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 0 a o O � 0 O � � 0 °°°° EXTENT OF EROSION PROTECTION (RIPRAP) a © co2 io-MP-o c-ooz Y1 N 4 d C=20' SIDE CHANNEL a=20' Tm=100' r � I OOOOOOC�GOOCCG ZD OCCCC OOoOOOC Ln 000000 000000 O O O O O O COCOGOCJ000COC O O O C C C O C C C00000001000000 O O O G O O O 00000000C� 000000 OO000OOC`� 000000 0o0o006�0 000000 C CSC 0 OGOCOC OOCOOOOOCf OOOOOC o 0 0 o d o 0 o COGCCCpGG �OOOOOC COG0C00 00G000 OOO00000QOGO00O00 00000 0O0O00�00-0-0 a U i AREA IMPACTED 18,100 SQ.FT. = 0.4 AC. LEGEND FLOW DIRECTION EXTENT OF EROSION PROTECTION (RIPRAP) r s C70-MP-DO2 rrE Com �A m a S �"-} 0l .4 5 4 ,5zt—ee.4 to d4 Sy _..� . .� r _._ � Exhibit 7 d NOTES 'ci • U AVERAGE VOLUME OF BERM: 51 ey/R TOTAL VOLUME OF BERM: 787,300 py CONTAINMENT LEVEE LENGTH: 18,380 !1 • BERM PLACEMENT AREA PROFILE HORZ SCALE: 1'-40'—O' VERT SCALE: I'-4'-0' IARY DISPOSAL EVEE °v irrwr 'c®0 ° ino w F � wm 3 g' d4 g w 0 Q awc in Q C70-10-D02 Z g C-509 A W rr a S�@44 I'+ CT' SLj 430' ACCESS CORRIDER - I-- -Kl - 100' ACCESS ROADWAY 130' LANDSCAPE BERM 75' SETBACK TO' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15, 25' 50, S0' 30' 60' 60' 15' �L TRACK (TYP.) o CL CRUISE TERMINAL 3 rL LANDSCAPE 3 ACCESS RDADWAY d BERM 9 75' a SETBACK o EASEMENT W U W N U N W Z Z Q U U w W Q Z a s � N 3,1 4 TRACK - ROADWAY SECTION - BERM PINE GULLY (DRAINAGE EASEMENT) S%, ct 15 v+ 5 LA z z J W S IL 2 PLANT PALETTE EVERGREEII TREES DEaDIFOUS SHRUBS CHMMY LMM - POW" CMNINAW AORMI BLMflM M - CALUCAMA AIOM MA MAR AAM MM A UM[ CM - Q OOO M UMMA D®IXXR NDU.Y - M OM UM LCMMlY FM - MW TAM MK !'EPFiNLIMI - C XW ALWOM fOt1OK - FMA MNMNXM R" CX•IM11i - TA70OM DNIKHUM IOMrldll FtiY - FMJ" WMA A NYAIO OA(- MAR M 90#ALV / MUM OAK - Q OI= MGM aim aw - plillalM PHRIM EVOtGREEN SHRUBS 1DUt tAiE - ULVOP AM FFMl1F1 M TAX W"M - VVIM COfURA YAL*CN - M MDIEICNA RS® PLANTWO PIT BACKFX,L WX C TIPMd1 YM PLANIM Ma (a ',ca L-1 51.-z2-t tom. o`C S-� 71 B A Y P 0 R T S H I P C H A N N E L • Bayport North Shore 20' Sound hall Plan View he B" —7 A PRECAST CONCRETE OR GALVANIZED STEEL, WIDE FLANGE SUPPORT. SUPPORTS TYICALLY SPACED 20 PRE -CAST FEET APART. SUPPORTS WILL BE PLACED TO AVOID PANEL WETLANDS BUT ALLOW PANEL TO SPAN WETLAND AREAS. PRE -CAST PANEL 20' TOP OF DRILLED CONCRETE PIER ANTICIPATE GAP BETWEEN GROUND AND BOTTOM OF PANEL TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE TO VARY BETWEEN 6' AND 12' SOUTHERN LIMIT OF PIPELINE EASEMENT IY TREE GUARANTEE OF 3 TREES EVERY 20 LINEAR FEET BETWEEN WALL AND SOUTHERN LIMIT OF PIPELINE EASEMENT �WALLEL 5UPPORT 20' PR�AST WALL 20' PRE -CAST WALL BAYPORT SHIP CHANNEL 20' -- 0' v 3 0 SOUTHERN LIMIT OF ° PIPELINE EASEMENT a I EXISTING GROUND - DRILLED PIER _ L 0 to 40' a` NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CRDSS SLCTION z ]iumerCoMeOBradenInc. o STOH � �� ry Bayport North Shore ry �o Typical Details 4 '5tA m i W i 5 a b 1Ze v 1 sr "Y Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan MITIGATION PROJECT DESIGN The mitigation project is designed to offset the loss of approximately 18.3 acres of USACE jurisdictional wetlands. The mitigation site supports a variety of vegetation communities ranging from coastal prairie to oak forest. Much of the prairie habitat west of the drainage canal i,s�.«� is)including existing wetland areas, is dominated by Chinese tallow and was classified as tallow/shrub habitat. The area to the east of the drainage canal contains open prairie habitat with some tallow infestation occurring, particularly in wetland areas. The primary components of the mitigation project are: • Wetland creation, • Wetland enhancement • Coastal prairie enhancement, and, • Wetland and upland habitat protection under a permanent conservation easement. Wetland Creation The wetland creation portion of the project will consist of constructing 66.8 acres of emergent wetland to offset injury to 18.3 acres of jurisdictional wetland at the Bayport Site at a mitigation ratio of more than 3.65:1. Approximately 4 acres of existing wetlands fall within the footprint of the proposed created wetland,. increasing the total wetland footprint to 70.8 acres The existing wetlands that fall within the footprint of the proposed created marsh will be enhanced by the increased frequency and duration of flooding resulting from the construction of the wetland project, as well as Chinese tallow removal. shows a typical cross sectional view of the wetland The Wetland Design consists of two interacting freshwater wetlands separated by a narrow strip of coastal prairie (S�.es+18). The southern most wetland includes 36.4 acres of emergent freshwater marsh and 25.2 acres of coastal prairie adjacent to Red Bluff Road. The north wetland, which is downslope from the south wetland, includes 34.4 acres of emergent marsh supported by a 14.7 acre band of coastal prairie watershed. At full pool, water depth in the south marsh will range from 0 to 1.2 feet, while maximum depth in the north marsh will be 1.6 feet Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 SLi Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Excess water from the south wetland will flow into the north wetland, and excess water from the north wetland will flow into Taylor Bayou via the Harris County Drainage Ditch. The design is intended to create wetlands with fluctuating water levels resulting from variations in the amount of precipitation and the rate of evapotranspiration over time. Water balance models were developed for each of the created wetland cells to project pool levels during normal precipitation periods (based on 46 years of median monthly precipitation data). Using median rainfall and evapotranspiration data the model indicated that, once the marshes filled, wetland pool levels would fluctuate during the year, but would contain some water each month of the year. The model was also used to project pool size for years when rainfall was not considered normal (median). Actual rainfall and evapotranspiration data for the years 1997-2000 were used to evaluate potential changes in pool size with respect to rainfall amounts and temporal distribution. The annual data showed that during dryer than normal periods, pool size may fall to zero (no standing water) at least once during the month, and remain dry for up to 3 consecutive months. The model also indicated that pool size could fall to zero during wetter than normal years when rainfall in not evenly distributed over the year. The wetlands will be developed by constructing two earthen levees that will impound runoff from the watershed to the southeast of the Harris County Ditch. Levee wings extending from the primary levees will intercept and direct runoff from a larger portion of the watershed into the wetland reservoir area. Levee construction materials will be obtained from on -site excavations and/or off -site sources, based on need and geotechnical requirements. Levee heights are planned to allow approximately 1.5 feet of freeboard (above the spillway elevations) when the wetlands are at full pool. On -site excavations will have no significant impact (depth modification) to the proposed wetland design. Soils from outside the wetland footprint, and thin (0.2 foot) layers from within the footprint may be used. During construction, the upper 6 inches of soil (topsoil) will be removed and stockpiled from all areas where levees and excavations will be located. Topsoil will be redistributed over the levees and excavated areas to establish final elevations and ensure that the surface is covered with an optimum planting medium. This will Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 ����-i a5 -� sLi Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan also remove organic materials from the footprint of the levees to improve their foundations and increase levee integrity. Other than necessary brush control and other preparatory measures, areas not selected for excavation or levee placement will not be disturbed. Water will overflow from the systems through a spillway structure in the north marsh and discharge to the Harris County drainage canal through an existing drainage point. The spillways will be designed to handle the maximum discharge that would be expected from a 100-year precipitation event. Appropriate erosion control measures (e.g., contouring, vegetation planting, and riprap) will be implemented downstream of the spillways. After earthwork is complete, but before planting is initiated, a topographic "as -built' survey will be conducted by a licensed surveyor. The survey will be conducted to determine if, planting surface elevations, levee elevations, and spillway elevations are within the thresholds set forth in this document. If the results of the survey show that the structures are at appropriate elevations, PHA will initiate planting. If the survey indicates that expected elevations have not been achieved, as defined, corrective actions will be taken to bring the Site to required elevations. A second survey will be conducted in areas affected by the corrective actions to ensure that the Site meets required elevations. If required elevations are not achieved, additional corrective actions and surveys will be required. The "as -built' survey drawing(s) will be submitted to the USACE along with the Post -Construction Report (5%o c-t 4 l ) following completion of planting. Prior to planting, all planting surfaces will be fertilized based on soils analysis results, and formulated for root and rhizome production (high phosphorus). The area will be flooded to the point where the soil is saturated prior to planting. The constructed wetland area will be planted with a variety of emergent wetland species to augment the existing site diversity 31 ). A reference wetland near the mitigation site was identified on the Armand Bayou Nature Center property across Red Bluff Road from the mitigation site The reference wetland has been recently restored by the Nature Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 a- S av (2" ,"'k) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Center. The site had been cleared of trees, sprigged with native grasses, and allowed to re - vegetate to its current state. Species composition includes a good representation of native wet prairie and prairie wetland plants that may be expected to do well in the mitigation wetland. A preliminary species list for consideration is presented .� 5 31. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 S Lj ri U • • U North Wetland Spillway Elevation +6.0' South Wetland Spillway Elevation; +8.2' - Port of Houston Authority Bayport Mitigation Plan: Typical Cross Section Through North Wetland and South Wetland File: Plan Figs Tapr Ij� Date: jum 4, 2002' � it (lknch-ym rk 51�e e t a`1 S y N P 1.0 to 1.2 ft. (2.78 acres) -N 1.2 to 1.4 ft. (1 . 10 acres) 1.4 to 1.6 ft. (0.64 acres) South W etiand (36.41 acres) M 0 to 0.2 ft. (11.59 acres) MR, 0 2 to 0.4 ft. (11.60 acres) 0.4 to 0.6 ft. (B.33 acres) 0.6 to 0.8 ft. (4.02 acres) 0.8 to 1.0 T. R.77 acresi .;tll-1 (36.41 acres) 141 Port of Houston Au•nty tho Bayport Mfigation Plan: 70 Acre Wetland Conceptual Desim F�le: Plan Figs 8.apt Date: June i • Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan es to be Common Name Soft -stem bulrush Arrowhead Pickerelweed Giant cutgrass Common rush nted in the created wetland Species Schoenop/ectus tabernaemontani a k s -D o OZ7._v i s e�) Planting Zone Shoreline Deep' Shallow2 X Sagittaria spp.3 X X Pontederia cordata X X Zizaniopsis miliacea X X Juncus effusus X Squarestem Eleocharis quadrangulata X spikerush 'Deep Planting Zone — 4.0-5.0 ft. elevations (0.5-1.5'maximum water depth) 2Shallow Planting Zone: 5.0-5.5 ft. elevation (0-0.5' maximum water depth) 'May include one or more of several locally occurring species The primary species currently being considered are Soft -stem bulrush, Arrowhead, Pickerelweed, Common rush, Squarestem spikerush. Primary species will be planted over approximately 80% of the planting surface according to water depth and species (-Jf-C ,".The remaining species will be planted in smaller areas within the wetland. The overall planting interval will be up to 1 plant/1.5 meter (emergent planting zone), or up to 1 plant/1.5 meter (shoreline plantings). Specific growth habits (particularly depth tolerance) will be considered when determining planting locations for each species. Other potential species that may be suitable for shallow planting areas are: Carex ssp., Cyperus virens, Echinochloa walteri, Eleocharis Montana, E. palustris, Leersia haxandra, Rhynchospora corniculata, Schoenoplectus americanus, and Utricularia sp. Many of these plants were identified in the reference wetland shown on st,. * ar, The final planting list will depend upon species availability at the time of planting. Plants will be obtained from local sources (within 150 miles). Commercial nursery grown stock and/or wild stock from donor sites may be utilized. Since the wetland water levels are designed to fluctuate from month to month, the wet area during the first growing season following construction will determine the actual planting area. Transitional areas within the wetland footprint (typically 0-0.3 feet depth at full pool) will not be planted with obligate wetland Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 5�et� 3 l 0-1 54 0 • D_l5Z6 (1ZQ_"'W Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan plants, but may be sprigged with transitional species. The primary colonization mechanism will be encroachment from planted zones and upland areas, the existing seedbank, and other natural means. Much of the transitional zone is expected to take on characteristics of wet prairie, rather than emergent marsh. As a result of depth variation within the footprint of the created wetland (14410), a variety of emergent plant species will be supported. Frequency and duration of flooding will also vary as a function of depth and will impact the ultimate plant community structure over time. Areas with a maximum depth ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 feet are expected to remain wet during most of the year, except during prolonged dry periods. Shallower areas are expected to be inundated for shorter periods depending on frequency, duration, and intensity of precipitation events in any given year. These areas should be wet long enough, under normal rainfall patterns to exhibit palustrine emergent wetland characteristics seen in seasonally flooded wetlands in this region. Ecological Classification Projected impacted resources resulting from the Bayport Project will include uplands (coastal prairie and forested), wetlands (adjacent and isolated, emergent and forested) that provide benefit to the coastal ecosystem. The Proposed Mitigation site will include many components that are ecologically similar, and provide similar ecological services as those that will be lost at the Bayport Project site. Soils Site soils (Beaumont Clay) are classified as hydric soils and typically exhibit some primary and secondary hydric soil characteristics (low chroma, slow permeability, nearly level). With relatively minor hydrologic modifications, such as strategically located levees, shallow impoundments that can retain surface runoff can be created. Long-term inundation (permanent or intermittent) will ultimately result in the formation of additional wetland soil characteristics (reducing conditions, oxide root channels, etc.). Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 ��2C 3 a --- " S y • 10 Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Vegetation Planted vegetation within the created wetland project area will consist of hydrophytic emergent species. Species to be planted are listed Levees, and all disturbed areas outside the marsh footprint will be planted with a quick cover plant such as ryegrass (Lolium L. sp.), but will be allowed to re -vegetate with native and introduced plant species from the seed bank. Sprigging of native vegetation 3-4 ) will also be conducted to enhance prairie restoration efforts. Plants to be controlled (undesirable plants) within the created wetland include Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), Cattail (Typha spp.), and Pink ammania (Ammania latifolia). Chinese tallow is considered an intolerable species and will be controlled within the created wetland throughout the construction () and monitoring phases 3'1 ) of the project. Cattail and Pink ammania will be controlled only during the first growing season, or until the planted species and other desirable species have sufficiently established themselves to effectively compete. Other invasive volunteer plants that appear in the wetland that threaten adequate coverage by planted and other desirable species will be controlled appropriately. Numerous other locally occurring desirable species may potentially appear as volunteer invasives and will be allowed to become established along with planted species. This will increase the plant species diversity in the wetland and, hence, increase the ecological value of the system. Hydrology The proposed wetland creation project will capitalize on the natural tendency of the Beaumont Soils to develop hydric characteristics by impounding runoff, creating shallow planting zones suitable for the development and maintenance of hydrophytic plant communities. The existing hydrology will be modified by constructing levees to channel and hold runoff. In order to increase the habitat diversity and provide for greater water storage capacity, designated areas within the wetland will be excavated so that deeper, more permanently flooded areas occur. This will increase the likelihood that those portions of the wetland will remain flooded during normal weather conditions and longer during prolonged periods of drought. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 s��� 33 0-� SH 0 • Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan D- (5 a 0 0e-" a) HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION In conjunction with mitigation for impacts to 18.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands by the creation of 66.8 acres of wetland, other habitat will be enhanced at the mitigation project site. Livestock grazing at the site ceased in March 2002. The entire site will be protected from livestock grazing and other agricultural practices, except for those deemed appropriate for continued management and protection of the site. This change in land use will benefit and enhance the existing 12.0 wetland acres at the site and the remaining 94.7 acres of upland forest, shrubland, and coastal prairie. Wetland Enhancement The project will result in tidal and freshwater wetland enhancement. Reduction of bank erosion along the drainage ditch caused by existing grazing practices and livestock activities, will allow stabilization of the existing tidal wetland area adjacent to, and within the drainage ditch. Much of the existing freshwater wetland areas have been invaded by Chinese tallow. Tallow control measures will be implemented and maintained throughout the project period (over 5 years), and in conjunction with the elimination of grazing impacts, will result in improvements in wetland habitat quality with increased species diversity and density of desirable wetland vegetation. Coastal Prairie Enhancement To improve management capabilities, the perimeter of the Mitigation Site will be fenced. Tallow control will be implemented and maintained throughout the project period on approximately 71 acres of Coastal Prairie. Along with the elimination of grazing impacts, increased native plant species diversity and density in the upland areas is expected.shows the created wetland footprint and areas proposed for coastal prairie restoration. Selected areas will be sprigged with Eastern gammagrass, Indiangrass, and Switchgrass to expedite colonization of these important species. Areas currently under consideration for sprigging are the upland band separating the two created wetland areas and the area between the created wetlands and Red Bluff Road. All coastal prairie restoration and maintenance Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 ���-� 3 `� S L4 • 9 Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan at S aO programs will be designed to correspond with the neighboring Armand Bayou Nature Center Management Plan, and where possible coordinated with Nature Center personnel. Sprigging areas will be planted with densities up to 1 sprig/20 feet. Habitat Protection The entire 173.5 project area will be placed under a permanent conservation easement. Protection features afforded by the permanent conservation easement will include protection of 173.5 acres of coastal habitat, including 12.0 acres of existing wetlands, 66.8 acres of created wetland, 71 acres of coastal prairie, and the remaining 23.7 acres of upland forest and shrublands from development. The habitats preserved under the conservation easement will provide valuable wildlife habitat for numerous resident and migratory species. The benefits will include the immediate on -site benefits as well as the following benefits to the estuarine environment within Taylor Bayou and Galveston Bay: • Increased nutrient binding within the upland and wetland habitats. • Decreased sedim6nt load due to reduced erosion and increased filtration. • Increased dissolved and particulate carbon (organic detritus). To insure permanent protection for the Mitigation Site, the PHA will seek to transfer ownership and management of the property to a non-profit organization or a state resource management agency. By agreement, the entire mitigation site will be protected and managed to protect the existing and created wetland resources. The PHA will provide copies of the written agreement with the new owner (subject to USACE review and approval) clearly describing the mitigation site and all restrictions. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 3 5 6-F 5 Li a o • x r� & 5 Y a i �. ,� k i a*•.aE }4 ., <p xA F s i '.. zi„ .._� aS.u°"'%,: _' fy,' Syr " 22 LYF T dr S '4e *• � +, ,t % r,x � - a `Yr- °N ;`7^, .hp• &:,`�,, w c,� "Y e L r� L ��-„vex ,,,�� �. � � dx.- ,. " ""may ,qk„ �r � �� � ., y�, ,-r ,q•' tr, � d, air w.r Y t .�,'�'"`},� w yF� , 41 IF Id- ^" i01 4i v Y a 34 A +W LJ s ° wr t . aril. Port of Houston Au thority Legend rt YY rPrairie Enhancement Areas �� [S- � e ✓ 4 � ..er,gg vi - �: Mitigated Wetlandr =g^ a ary 'Coastal I m m r in 'e,20 02 0 0 Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan MONITORING Z�Ll 5 D- o (R,-, ;s �'_k) The PHA will conduct Wetland Monitoring to document wetland success. Wetland performance monitoring will be conducted in two phases: Phase I, which is considered a post -planting growth phase, will be initiated after construction and planting are complete, and will continue for three (3) years. Phase I activities will include monitoring and maintenance. Wetland performance standards will be met before Phase I is concluded; Phase II, a performance maintenance period, begins after the conclusion of Phase I. Phase If will continue for two (2) years to assure performance standards achieved during Phase I are maintained. During both Phase I and II, monitoring will be conducted using both qualitative and quantitative field methods. The methods employed during a particular monitoring event will be dependent upon the specific objective for that Phase or monitoring event. Qualitative monitoring will involve visual inspections, ground -level photographs, and professional judgment of the field biologists. Quantitative surveys may include aerial photography to document growth trends and surveys of vegetation survival and growth. Quantitative monitoring will be used to document progress toward performance standards. Monitoring Schedule and Requirements Phase I Monitoring Phase I Monitoring of the wetland creation project will be initiated after planting of marsh vegetation is complete and construction has been approved by the USACE. The completion of planting shall serve as time zero for monitoring, reporting, and time related Success Criteria (i.e., the initiation of Phase II). The objective of Phase I monitoring will be to document vegetation survival and growth trends in the constructed wetland. During Phase I, PHA will monitor marsh development at least twice during the first growing season, and semi-annually until performance standards have been achieved. Informal monthly site inspections will be conducted during the first growing season in order to quickly identify potential problems. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 a k S ao (:�_"irj) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Scheduled monitoring events include: 45 days post -planting The first scheduled monitoring event will be conducted within 45 days of the initiation of Phase I. The first inspection will focus principally on the survival of planted vegetation. Characteristics to be monitored; • Plant survival — emergent and transitional plants (quantitative) End of the 1st Growing Season The second monitoring event will be conducted in the fall, at the end of the first growing season. This inspection will focus on the growth of planted vegetation, growth of undesirable species, and the integrity of constructed levees. Wildlife utilization will be noted during the inspection(s) will be documented. Characteristics to be monitored; • Plant survival — emergent, transitional, and upland (quantitative) • Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative) • Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative) • Levee integrity (qualitative) • Wildlife utilization (qualitative) • Aerial photograph (quantitative) Beginning of the 2"d Growing Season Monitoring events will -be conducted in spring and fall, to correspond with the beginning and end of the growing season. Semi-annual inspections will be conducted until Phase I Performance Standards have been achieved Characteristics to be monitored; • Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative) • Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative) • Levee integrity (qualitative) • Wildlife utilization (qualitative) End of Phase I When PHA determines that the marsh has met the Performance Standards, a final monitoring inspection will be scheduled and conducted to document conditions in the wetland and demonstrate that Performance Standards have been achieved. Results of the inspection will be submitted for USACE review yam). If USACE concurs with the findings, Phase I monitoring will be concluded. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 --I-1sac) �3'94) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Characteristics to be monitored; • Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative) • Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative) • Levee integrity (qualitative) • Wildlife utilization (qualitative) • Aerial photograph (quantitative) Phase II monitoring Phase II will commence immediately after Phase I is concluded. The objective for Phase II will be to document the performance of the wetland to ensure that the standards are maintained over a two-year period. During Phase ll, the marsh will be monitored annually, at the end of the growing season. If Performance Criteria are maintained at the conclusion of Phase II, the marsh project will be certified as complete. End of the Vt Phase II Growing Season The first Phase II monitoring event will be conducted at the end of the first Phase II growing season. The monitoring will be a quantitative inspection, similar to the inspection conducted at the end of Phase I, to document maintenance of performance standards. Characteristics to be monitored; • Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative) • Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative) • Levee integrity (qualitative) • Wildlife utilization (qualitative) • Aerial photograph (quantitative) End of the 2"d Phase II Growing Season The second Phase II monitoring event will be a quantitative inspection similar to the first Phase II inspection. If performance standards have been maintained at the end of the second Phase II Monitoring event (2 years after performance standards were met) the monitoring report will serve as the final Phase II report. Characteristics to be monitored; • Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative) • Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative) • Levee integrity (qualitative) Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 -:� `l 04- S 4 0 --�- \ s ;1-0 (ZQ.,; S ek) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan • Wildlife utilization (qualitative) • Aerial photograph (quantitative) The objective of the Phase II Inspections is to document maintenance of performance standards through quantitative sampling. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 S ke—e.-4 `A c) A— S y Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan :-k5aU (IZev►se-k) RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING Results of all field monitoring efforts and activities will be documented and provided to the USACE for their review on a regular basis. Reporting will involve three types of reports: • Post -construction Report, • Semi-annual Progress Report, • Phase I and Phase II Final Reports, Post -construction Report A post -construction report will be prepared after the first post -planting inspection. The post construction report will be provided to the USACE within 30 days after all construction and planting activities, and the 45-day inspection has been completed. The report will include: Results of initial vegetation inspection, • As -built drawings, • Surveyor's report, and, • Aerial photograph. Semi -Annual Progress Report During Phase I and Phase II, Semi -Annual Progress Reports will be prepared after the spring and fall monitoring events. Examples of information that will be reported include: • Summary of scheduled or unscheduled site visits, • Results of vegetation surveys, levee inspections, wildlife observations, • Aerial photograph, • Issues and problems that may adversely impact project performance, and • Documentation of corrective actions. A copy of the Semi-annual report will be provided to the USACE within 60 days following the monitoring event. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 7St_4_c , U-� SL4 • 0 Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Phase I and Phase 11 Final Reports When Phase I or Phase II monitoring inspections indicate that performance standards have been met, a Final Report will be prepared to document conditions in the wetland and provide evidence that performance standards have been met. The report will include at a minimum the following: • A summary of quantitative and qualitative data collected, • Monitoring results and analysis, including photographs (when appropriate), • Site maps showing data collection locations and results, as appropriate, • Summary of corrective actions taken, and • Aerial photograph. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 a ( 5 ad (ze.t ;-ga) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan SUCCESS CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The objective of this mitigation project is to replace the ecological services that are expected to be lost when jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands are removed, for the construction of the proposed Bayport Project. The USACE has determined that the mitigation wetlands proposed for this project must provide a reasonable level of ecological service, in perpetuity, to meet the intended replacement objectives for 18.3 acres of adjacent wetlands expected to be lost at the Bayport Project site. This section outlines the methods by which development of the compensatory wetland will be evaluated, and the long-term success of the project assured. Success criteria are the quantifiable physical, chemical, and ecological characteristics through which the performance of a project will be measured. Generally, success criteria are not based on direct measurements of ecological service, but are based on the measurement of characteristics that are critical for the provision of ecological services. A constructed wetland should provide the intended level of ecological service, when all the critical elements have been provided. The characteristics that are critical for long-term success of a constructed wetland are, • Wetland hydrology, • Percent cover of desirable hydrophytic vegetation, and, • Control of undesirable vegetation. When construction of the project is complete, these characteristics will be evaluated on a prescribed schedule ( Gk_.tcrts 37 40), using approved analytical methods, to determine when established performance standards have been achieved. The performance standards established for this project are short-term performance goals that, if met, will provide reasonable assurance of long-term project success. If the constructed wetland meets the performance standards specified in this plan during the prescribed monitoring period, it is reasonable to assume the wetland will continue to provide a reasonable level of ecological service into the future. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 S H Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan This wetland project will be considered a success, and the project will be considered complete, when all of the performance standards listed below have been achieved. Wetland Hydrology Site hydrology is an important factor contributing to the success of the proposed wetlands. Existing hydrology, south of the drainage canal, will be modified slightly to allow surface water to be impounded on the 70.8-acre wetland site. The proposed wetland design will use low earthen levees to divert a portion of the stormwater runoff flowing across the property, from south to north, and east to west, into the wetlands. Site hydrology outside of the watershed formed by the levees will not be adversely impacted. Water that passes through the created wetlands will be discharged into the Harris County drainage canal at an existing discharge point. During periods with median levels of rainfall (based on TWQB and NWS data for 1954-2000) the size of the flooded zone will remain relatively constant. By design, the size of the flooded area will vary as a result of the amount of rainfall received in the watershed and the rate of evapotranspiration. The size of the flooded zone will decrease during periods of low rainfall and peak evapotranspiration (June -September), but will not typically fall below 40 acres. During periods with less than median levels of rainfall, the flooded zone may be significantly reduced or completely lost. A hydrologic model developed for the wetlands indicates that there may be little or no standing water in the wetlands from June through September during years with less than median levels of rainfall or years with less than normal levels of rainfall during summer. Performance Standards a. Hydrology in the proposed wetlands will be evaluated during each monitoring period and results will be reported in the monitoring reports. The footprint of hydrophytic vegetation will vary depending on the water level in the system. When measured at full pool, the combined wetlands should contain 70.8 acres of flooded habitat. During Phase I, the wetland footprints will be measured at full pool at least once each year. The achievement of full pool will demonstrate that site hydrology is appropriate for wetland development. The footprint of hydrophytic vegetation will be used to provide supportive evidence of success. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 y4 LA 6+ S LA 0 • Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Corrective Actions -a k s aao 0; "' isk) a. If wetland hydrology is not maintained, PHA will evaluate the problem and recommend an appropriate response. The appropriate response might include modifications to site hydrology, spillway modifications, levee modifications, or no action. Cover of Desirable Vegetation Achieving the target percentage of vegetative cover is a critical step in successful wetland development. The species composition of plants and ratio of cover of desirable to undesirable species will determine, to a great extent, the quality of ecological services provided by the wetland. Desirable vegetation includes species that provide high quality habitat and nutritious forage for wetland fauna, while stabilizing wetland soils and enhancing the quality of water passing through the wetland. Fluctuations in pool levels and flooded acreage, resulting from variations in rainfall and evapotranspiration, are expected. Therefore, only areas that are frequently flooded during the planting season will be planted. The remaining areas within the wetlands will be allowed to become naturally vegetated from endemic plant/seed sources and spreading from planted zones. Planted species must meet minimum planting densities after wetland construction is complete. The planted species must also meet or exceed expected survival rates (within hydrated planting zones) after the first post -planting inspection; and meet or exceed targeted coverage (within flooded areas) at subsequent monitoring events. The flooded areas subject to vegetative cover success criteria may be different from the area originally planted, depending on water level fluctuations during the first three seasons following planting. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 S 457�S y 0 a�SaU��e•�i�e�, Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Performance Standards a. Planted vegetation must exhibit at least 50% survival at the first post - construction monitoring event (45 days post -planting). b. Cover of desirable vegetation in the flooded zones and non -planted areas within the wetland footprint equal to or exceeding 70% by the end of Phase 1 (3 years). c. Cover of desirable vegetation in the planting zones and non -planted areas within the wetland footprint equal to or exceeding 70% throughout Phase II (2 years). Corrective Actions a. If 50% survival of planted vegetation is not exhibited during the first post - construction monitoring event, replanting will be required at the original density in areas where 50% survival is not exhibited. Replanting will occur as soon as it is biologically and logistically feasible, but no later than the beginning of the next growing season. b. If the percent cover of desired species does not meet or exceed 70% at the end of Phase 1 (3 years), The PHA will be required to evaluate the cause of the unacceptable growth and recommend an appropriate response. Appropriate responses could include modifications to site hydrology, replanting, introduction of different species, or no action. c. If the percent cover of desired species does not meet or exceed 70% throughout Phase II (2 years), The PHA will be required to evaluate the cause of the unacceptable growth and recommend an appropriate response. Control of Undesirable Vegetation Some of the of the vegetation that will grow voluntarily in the planting zones will be considered undesirable vegetation. Undesirable species are typically exotic species or invasive native species that provide poor habitat and forage, or impede the establishment and maintenance of desirable species. Some undesirable species will cause little harm and may be tolerated. Other species will adversely impact wetland development and will not be tolerated. Plant species to be controlled during the wetland creation construction and monitoring periods are discussed .33 . Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 S U, £_2* LA b .4 S Li 0 0 a t 5:::L0 CZe.r ise-�) Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan Performance Standards a. Vegetative cover of undesirable species shall not exceed 10% within the wetland or enhanced upland habitats during Phase I, or until planted and other desirable species have become well established. While it may be impractical or impossible to completely eliminate this vegetation, the growth and spread of these species must be controlled. The growth and cover of Chinese Tallow must be controlled throughout the monitoring period. Corrective Actions a. If the vegetative cover of undesirable species exceeds 10% within the planting zones, during any Phase I monitoring event, control measures must be initiated. Methods for controlling undesirable species may include mechanical manipulation or chemical control. b. The growth and spread of Chinese tallow must be controlled throughout the monitoring period. Methods for controlling Chinese tallow may include mechanical manipulation or chemical control. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 ��.�� `-Arl .4- S 9 • Port of Houston Authority Wetland Mitigation Plan FINAL CERTIFICATION D—� 5---)- C) v i 3- When the Created Wetland Project meets all of the performance standards including the two- year period for maintaining such standards, PHA will notify the USACE in writing. Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc. June 2002 0 •l ��cU�Ze� s Additional Bayport Terminal Mitigation Features June 12, 2002 -DRAFT- The Bayport Terminal plan has undergone considerable modification since the concept for the terminal was approved by the Port Commission nearly four years ago. The vast majority of these modifications have been the result of input from citizens and agencies that was provided with a goal of reducing or mitigating the impact of the project on the human environment. The POHA is updating the materials that comprise the permit application to ensure that the reviewing agencies and public have the most accurate information possible about the proposed terminal. This discussion describes those elements of the POHA application that have been included to reduce or mitigate impacts. Buffer Zone and 20-Foot Berm As shown on the enclosed facility drawings, the terminal would have a buffer zone separating the terminal from surrounding land uses. The width of the buffer zone ranges from approximately 130 to 600 feet. Along the southern boundary the buffer zone ranges from 130 to 205 feet. Along Todville Road, the buffer zone is 600 feet wide, narrowing to 300 feet as it approaches Port Road. 128 acres of the project site, or approximately 12% of the total acreage involved in the project would be buffer. Within the buffer zone, a 20-foot tall and 130-foot wide earthen berm would be constructed as shown. The portion of the berm, formerly located between the container and cruise terminals, has been relocated. This section would now be constructed between the cruise terminal and El Jardin (Sheet 2). In addition, POHA would plant the berm with a mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs, designed to minimize noise, light and visual impacts to the surrounding community. The planting would be composed of native deciduous and evergreen species that are typically found within the Galveston Bay area (Sheets 16 and 17). Approximately twenty different species would be used to create a natural appearance and view from nearby residential areas. Additionally, the planting plan has been conceived with the intent that the area would develop into a self-sustaining natural environment within a few short years. Because the berm is being constructed from dredged material, we are proposing to over -excavate the planting pits and introduce a fertile planting backfill mix. This added backfill mix along with a slow release fertilizer would provide the plant material with needed nutrients and help ensure the successful vegetation of the berm. As part of the initial construction, a one-year watering and maintenance period would be included to provide a better guarantee of the desired end result. L4 Seventy -Five Foot Set Aside The PHA is committing the 75-foot wide strip located between the vegetated berm and Pine Gully (9.3 acres) to be set aside for habitat purposes and no future development (Sheet 15). The plan calls for this area to remain in its present natural condition. Channel Setback Areas shoreward of the existing channel boundary would be excavated to a width of 225 feet, as shown on the facility drawings included with this document. This effectively widens the channel and enhances navigation safety. In addition, this increases the distance of the berths from the residential areas north of the channel. North Shore Slope Protection Construction is complete on a slope protection and planting program for the north shoreline of the Bayport channel. While the riprap portion of the project addresses past, current, and future erosion, the permitted project was expanded to include tree and shrub planting designed to minimize the impacts of the terminal project on nearby residential areas. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Dredged material, excess to that needed for site development, would be placed offsite. The material would be put to beneficial use, resulting in the creation of intertidal marsh, high marsh, and some upland where the marsh ties into the existing land mass (Sheet 13). Approximately 200 acres would ultimately be constructed. This use of dredged material would prevent the material from being disposed of as a waste and conserve valuable space in confined disposal areas. It would also potentially provide improvements in water quality in Galveston Bay and replace wetland habitat lost to subsidence or erosion. Cruise The original Bayport Master plan (1998) and permit application contained a five berth Cruise Terminal. The modified three -cruise berth plan reduces the submerged areas dredged by 23 acres, submerged areas filled by 21.3 acres (90% reduction) and the offsite dredged material disposal by over a million cubic yards Pre -Entry Gate Relocation In response to the concerns of residents, the pre -entry gate has been relocated approximately 5,000 feet west of its original location, as shown on the enclosed drawings (Sheet 2). Wetland Property Acquisition and Mitigation The verified wetland delineation of the project site by the Corps (5-2-2002) provides that there are 18.296 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. To mitigate these and other biotic impacts, the POHA has acquired a 173.5-acre tract of land located just north of Highway 146 on Red Bluff, immediately adjacent to Armand Bayou Nature Center and Taylor Lake. Within this property, the POHA proposes to create 66.8 acres of emergent freshwater wetlands (3.6:1 compensation for impacted, jurisdictional wetlands) and the enhancement of more than 12 acres of existing wetland. The project would also preserve 23.7 acres of forested and shrub uplands and 71 acres of restored coastal prairie. In addition, a conservation easement would be imposed on the entire 173-acre tract. This would preserve, a sizeable block of diverse habitat that is upstream of Armand Bayou Nature Center, and within its watershed. Storm Water Management and Treatment The applicant proposes a variety of mitigative features to potentially improve water quality. These include first flush capture, a south terminal retention pond, inlet treatment units, and high impact area treatment. These are described below. First Flush - POHA is currently regulated for storm water discharges under the Multi - Sector Stormwater General Permit (MSGP) for Industrial Discharges and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). The primary areas of concern under the MSGP for SIC 4491 (Water Transportation) are four metals (aluminum, zinc, lead and uranium). Experience at the existing Barbors Cut Container Terminal has revealed that these metals are primarily attached to Total Suspended Solids (TSS). To facilitate the capture of TSS, the applicant proposes to capture the first inch of rainfall into a holding pond, as shown in the master plan drawing. This would allow the TSS to be retained in the pond, decreasing the discharge of sediments into the Bayport Ship Channel and Pine Gulley. South Terminal Retention Pond The loss of infiltration resulting from the concrete surfacing of the site would result in an increased rate of stormwater discharge to Pine Gulley. To maintain the undeveloped discharge rate after project construction, the applicant proposes to install a retention pond in addition to the first flush pond. The function of this structure would be to capture and hold stormwater in excess of the first inch and release it slowly. The delayed release of stormwater would prevent increased flooding or disruption of the Pine Gulley ecosystem. To further enhance water quality functions, the POHA plans to create a meandering channel in the bottom of the South Terminal Retention Pond with fringe planting of low bio- mass wetland plant species, such as spikerush, which would grow to cover the entire 12-15 acre pond bottom. To discourage excess biomass build-up, the pond bottom would be mowed once annually, while the sides would be mowed 3-4 times per year to prevent loss of capacity. S � J S 0 Inlet Treatment Units and High Area Impact Treatment - The areas with the highest likelihood of contributing contaminants to stormwater are the Maintenance Facility, RTG Maintenance Areas, and the Equipment Parking Areas. These areas would have isolated drainage basins, which have inlet treatment units that remove TSS and oil and grease, with the discharged water then proceeding to the first flush basin. Alternate Fuel for Vehicles and Equipment The applicant has been extensively involved in the development and application of alternative fuels at its existing facilities and would continue this commitment. This would include propane powered POHA-owned on -road vehicles and small forklifts, when commercially available. It may also include diesel -emulsion fuel for RTG's and yard tractors owned by the applicant. Diesel -emulsion fuel is expected to reduce NO, emissions by 25% and particulate emissions by 30%. On -site Fire/Hazmat and Police The applicant would have an on -site Fire Department, with a Hazmat team, and an on -site Police Department. Lighting The Design elements have been developed to minimize glare, light spill, light trespass, and light pollution to surrounding areas. These elements are: • All lighting fixtures would be of the "dark sky" type developed by major manufacturers. • All highmast lighting would incorporate the use of either light shields or compact bulbs solutions to avoid changes to lighting conditions to LaPorte and Shoreacres on the northern and opposite side of the Bayport channel. • During the lighting design, an effort would be made to control light rays to avoid unacceptable light trespass or pollution while adhering to these general lighting criteria. Cruise Road The original Master Plan routed cruise terminal traffic along an improved Todville Road. To address the concerns about increased traffic on Todville Road, the plan has been modified to include a new road —Cruise Road —which is a new public roadway located interior to the berm within the terminal boundaries (Sheet 2). Todville/Port Road Intersection To address neighborhood concerns about container truck traffic on Todville Road, the applicant has redesigned the intersection. This plan would eliminate the existing intersection and replace it with new intersections between (1) Port Road and Cruise Road, and (2) Cruise Road and Todville Road. 0 • Environmental Management System The applicant would develop and implement an Environmental Management System that meets the requirements for ISO 14001 certification. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Construction BMP's The POHA would implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan that would identify best management practices and monitor their effectiveness by sampling stormwater at outfalls at least once per quarter. The plan would also include construction BMP's. Waste Minimization The POHA would implement a waste minimization program at Bayport to reduce the amount of wastes generated and disposed of by the POHA as well as increase the recycling opportunities. The types of wastes include used oil, absorbents, oily rags, etc. Leaking Container Station At our present facilities, the POHA occasionally handles containers leaking potentially hazardous materials. Therefore, it was decided that an area within the Bayport Container Terminal would be dedicated to manage such incidents. The designated area would provide a means of safely capturing leaking materials from containers that are assumed to be hazardous material, until appropriate corrective actions can be undertaken. The location of the designated Leaking Container Stations (LCS) area is in the chassis parking area, as shown on the facility drawing. The designated 80-ft x 20-ft containment area is sloped from the four sides towards a sump located in the center. The sump would be sized to capture three 55 gallon drums of hazardous materials with a remote shut off valve between the sump and the access to storm drain. The containment area is intended to capture and hold the leaking material until the material can be pumped out and properly disposed of. The shut off valve would prevent the hazardous material from entering the stormwater system. When the sump has been thoroughly cleaned and all the hazardous contaminants removed, the valve would be opened and the area would function as a typical catch basin for rainwater. The designated area would be marked by stripping and appropriate bollards linked by chain to limit the parking to only containers with leaking material. Drilled Shaft vs. Piles The great weights that must be supported by the wharf at the container terminal require a substantial foundation. The usual construction technique involves pile -driven supports. In order to eliminate this noise source, the applicant would use drilled shafts for the container facility as an alternative. L 54 �oz!"i Tangent Pier vs. Sheetpile Construction The standard construction technique at water's edge involves sheetpiles that are driven into the earth. The applicant would use the Tangent Pier construction technique for the 7,000-foot container wharf to potentially reduce both water quality and noise impacts. North Shore Noise Wall A 20-foot pre -cast concrete wall has been designed to reduce the potential noise impacts to the North Shore Communities (Sheets 18 and 19). Additionally, there would be enhancement planting to ensure at least three trees every 20 linear feet on the North side of the wall. It is intended that Loblolly Pines would be planted where needed (Sheet 19). Spreader Bars To further reduce the potential noise impacts to the North Shore communities, the PHA is committing to installing impact noise reductions system on all wharf crane spreader bars utilized at Bayport.