HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting
.
.
.
e
e
m
Public Notice
u.s. Army Corps
Of Engineers
Galveston District
Permit Application No:
Date Issued:
Comments Due:
21520 (Revised)
17 M:ly 2003
16 June 2003
I ~:......:~':".!f:'!'..UlEJ.:' r"~&;.~~~~~,,,,:;:;~~~.~~ a;.~""":'!;.:Jf!il;,~,6'.'.:I-:;t"::.o::'!"'~..tt!;<ni"!::'i'"f.-.-:~~.. ;.:-....~~~~.:i!"l'f~!:;,.:~-. .'~:~.;H~..':l;..:::;..~.:1:.~..... .:;~~.-.. . :.: .:..~._-. . .-.y:-:.t:,.:..~: t. 1
u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICT
AND
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Purpose of Public Notice: To announce and inform you of the release of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the permit application and the public comment
period for the Port of Houston Authority's proposed Bayport Ship Channel Container/Cruise
Terminal.
Background: In October 1998, the Port of Houston Authority submitted a Department of
Army Permit Application to construct a container/cruise terminal in the City of Pasadena,
adjacent to the Bayport Ship Channel and Galveston Bay, in Harris County, Texas. The
project would include the filling and excavation of wetlands and waters of the U. S.,
dredging, and wharf construction. It was determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would be required for the proposed project. In August 1999, a scoping
meeting and public information workshop were held at the Pasadena Convention Center,
in Pasadena, to determine the issues to be considered in the EIS. The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in November 2001. Three
workshops were held to provide information to the public regarding the proposed project
and the DE IS. The first two workshops were conducted in November and December 2001
at the Pasadena Convention Center. The third workshop and a public hearing were held
in December 2001 at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. Public
comments on the DEIS were accepted through March 13, 2002. The FE IS is now available
for public review and comment. ;'
Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): Pursuant to section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended and as
implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40CFR Parts 1500-1508) a FEIS
for the proposed Bayport Ship Channel Container/Cruise Terminal has been filed with the
EPA and is being made available to Federal, State and local agencies and all interested
parties. The availability of the FEIS will be announced inth~ Federal Reaister on May 16,
2003. Copies of the FEIS are available in CD or hard copy format. A CD version of the
FEIS and/or a hard copy of the FEIS Executive Summary are available free of charge and
are available by contacting Ms. Lori Magyar, URS Corporation, 9801 Westheimer, Suite
e
;.
500, Houston, Texas 77042, or by calling 713-914-6480. Hard copies of the entire FEIS
are also available by contacting Ms. Lori Magyar; there is a $874.58 charge for the
document. In addition, the FEIS is available for viewing on our website at
www.swQ.usace.armv.mil and at the following libraries:
.
Evelyn Meador Branch Library
2400 North Meyer Road
Seabrook, Texas 77586
La Porte P~blic Library
600 S. Broadway
La Porte, Texas 77571
League City Library
100 West Walker St.
League City, Texas 77573
Sterling Municipal Library
1 Mary Wilbanks Avenue
Ba~own,Texas77520
Pasadena Public Library
Fairmont Branch
4330 Fairmont Parkway
Pasadena, Texas 77504
La Marque,Public Library
1011 Bayou Road
La Marque, Texas 77568
Houston Public Library
500 McKinney
Houston, Texas 77002
Moore Memorial Public Library
1701 9th Ave. North
Texas City~ Texas 77590
University of Houston Clear Lake
Alfred R. Neumann Library
2800 Bay Area Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77058
.
Rosenberg Library
2310 Sealy Avenue
Galveston, Texas 77550
Public Comment: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Galveston District will be
accepting public comment on the FEIS through June 16, 2003. All comments must be
postmarked by June 16,2003. You may send written comments to the USACE, Galveston
District, Attn: Mr. Fred Anthamatten, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, Texas 77553-1229.
Permit Application: The applicant has made revisions to the project plan sheets to more
clearly show the proposed project location and features, to show the location and acreage
of all jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands and other aquatic resources occurring
at the proposed project site, and to finalize the proposed mitigation plan. A copy of the
revised project plans is attached. ;
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: Mr. Charles D. Jenkins
2
.
.
.
.
e
e
Location: The project is located adjacent to the Bayport Ship Channel and Galveston
Bay, 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.
The proposed compensatory mitigation site, the Memorial Tract, is a 173.5-acre tract of
land located approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the inter~ection of Red Bluff Road and
Bay Area Boulevard, north of Taylor Lake Village and adjacent to Taylor Bayou and
Armand Bayou Nature Center, in Harris County, Texas. The proposed compens,atory
mitigation area can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled "League City,
Texas". Approximate UTM coordinates: Zone 15; Easting 30"1000; Northing: 3275500.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to develop a container/cruise terminal on
approximately 1,043 acres in the vicinity of and adjacent to 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. The container terminal complex would
require the construction of approximately 7,000 linear feet of new wharves and berths,
container yards, gate facilities, intermodal yards, container freight stations, ancillary and
support facilities, and an industrial cq-development area. The cruise terminal complex
would require approximately 3,200 linear feet of new wharves and berths, parking areas,
a cruise co-development area, and the dredging of a channel access area and a new
1 ,600-foot-diameter cruise ship turning basin. Construction 'of the proposed container and
cruise berths to a depth of -40 feet mean low tide with 2 feet of advanced maintenance
and overdepth would generate approximately 7,801,000 cubic yards of dredged material.
Dredging would be accomplished during four phases over 15 to 20 years. Dredged
material would be utilized for berm construction, as fill for facilities construction, and for
beneficial use to construct an intertidal marsh.
A USACE-approved delineation has verified that the project site contains approximately
19.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 126.7 acres of non-jurisdictional wetlands, and 1.56
acres of intertidal mudflats. The applicant proposes to avoid impacts to a 0.43-acre
jurisdictional wetland north of the Bayport Ship Channel. As compensatory mitigation for
project impacts to aquatic resources, the applicant proposes to create approximately 66.8
acres of emergent wetlands, enhance approximately 12.0 acres of existing wetlands,
preserve approximately 23.7 acres of forested/shrub uplands, and enhance approximately
71.0 acres of coastal prairie within the Memorial Tract, and to place the tract under a
conservation easement. The applicant's plans are enclosed in 30 sheets and the
applicant's proposed mitigation features plan is enclosed as an attachment of 34 sheets.
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.
3
e
e
State Water Quality Qualifications: 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 Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) certification is required.
Concurrent with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) processing of this application, the
TCEQ 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
aod the TCEQ, this public notice is also issued for the purpose of advising all known
interested persons that t~ere 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 Commission on Environmental Quality, 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 TCEQ's Austin office. The complete application may be
reviewed in the Corps office. The Texas Commission on :Environmental Quality held a
public meeting on April 3, 2003 at the Bay Area Community Center in Seabrook, Texas,
on the 401 certification for the proposed project. The comments submitted by the public
during the meeting will be considered in evaluating the 401 certification.
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 portions
of the proposed project area. The results of the investigation indicate that
certain portions of the facility project area contain t]le potential for having
,prehistoric and historic sites - with at least three historic sites, 41 HR831-833
having been identified for the project area, and known property 41 HR212 is
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed compensatory mitigation area.
However, the proposed mitigation site and the latest proposed project
boundaries as of May 2003 are not covered in the Prewitt report, and have
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. Additional field surveys are necessary to
cover the proposed project boundaries as of May 2003. 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
4
.
e
e
.
development in the area; however, the proposed permit action does include
work within the 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 CE 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 determin~,tion is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse
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, air and 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 to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
.
5
e
e
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 fumish a clear
understanding of the reasons for support or opposition.
Close of Comment Period: All comments pertaining to this Public Notice must be
postmarked by 16 June 2003. 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 da~~, it will be considered that there are no objections. Comments
and requests for additional information should be submitted to:
Mr. Fred Anthamatten
Regulatory Branch, CESWG-PE-RB
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
409-766-3943 Phone
409-766-3931 Fax
DISTRICT ENGINEER
GALVESTON DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
.
6
.
Mitigation Area Footprint
4
N
+ -
0 3000 Feet
I 1
Projeca Location
Bayport Marine Terminal
Environmental Impact Statement
FIG~ 2 - BAYPORT TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT FACILITY PLAN
-
-
I ~~ ,
I 1c::J~
0
'J -:.
~ ~
lA_
CIO-IIDUIICIII
-
I
--- I
I ,ri i
~
~
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) 3
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ...1. of 30. (Revised May 2003.
,I
0IIIIlllIl!l
llllllllllllJ
~
~ ~ ~
0:::
o
:I:
I-
~ I
z -
~.
~ I t
o
:I:
I..&..
o
I-
0:::
o
a..
i
I
I
Ed
-
.
{}
.... 'IDO
. .
FIG. 3 - BAYPORT DEVELOPMENT ACREAGE
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) ,
6alveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ..!.... of 30. (Revised May 2003)
JO ACRES
378 ACRES
7\ ACRES
123 ACRES
47 ACAES
45 ACRES
82 ACRES
"ACRES
43 ACRES
128 ACRES
28 ACRES
1,043 ACRES
80 ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACREs
127,3
2.2
25,2
0.8
i;2ei
~TAlNfR Tr'RNINAL
jWlHARf'
2 CONTAINER YARD
3 GATE F'AOU11ES
4 1N1ERIIODAL YARD
5 ANauARY SER\lCES (BIDOS, '" PARKlNC)
8 CONTAINER F1lElCHT STAlICN
INDUStRIAL CO-DE\'ELOPIIEHT AREA
@ CRUISE 1ERIIINAL
@ CRUISE CCl-Df:VE1.CIPMEHT MIU.
Q BUFFER ZONE:
o RE:lENlICN PONDS NOT IN BUFFER ZONE
BAW'ORT TERMINAL CCI/PILX TOTAL-
o .MPRCMIl ANO NEW ROADIRAIL R.o.w,
IU.V AnTTt'JY &("~&~
II suaIERGGl BAY BOTTOll - DEEPEHED
SUIlIIIRGED BAY BOTTOll - FIU.ED
DRY LAND - E:XCAVAttD ANI) SUBIoIERCED
l\01DlD BANK STA8IUZAlION
DE:\a.llPIIEHT ARE.A TOTAL-
J:Um
'!HE ACREAGE: llIPIC1IIl ON lIaS PLAN
IS CONCZPlUAL AND APPIlOlClllA1E.
1111 IIN' IS NOT F'lR CONS1RUC1ION
PURPOSES.
LBC-HOUSTCIN
1
FIG. 4 - BAYPORT TERMINAL SITE PLAN
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ..i...- of. 30. (Revised May 2003)
0
..,
c:::l ....
5iii5iii!
..
~
0
~
I
u
LEGENQ ~
~
1A'/PlmJ PlIO.IECT BOUNIIM'f ~
3
: ....~
C::.
SEl:IlOHcur Erj-
.~'wJ
FIG. REPIIlINCf NWIIDt
I 1c:J1
I
iCJc:Jc:J
~
a:rm
.
. .
FIG. 5- CONTAINER TERMINAL WHARF CROSS SECTION
.Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet --2... of '30. (Revised May 2003)
l:iQIE:
" CIWlNEL Cl.ENlANCE ALLOWS FOR POST PANAllAX
VESSELS OF UP 10 22 CONTAINERS WIDE
(18 CONTAINER WIDE \/ESSEL SHOWN)
2, TDlPORARlLY DREDGED FOR CONS1RUCTION PURPOSES ONLY,
AREA WILL IE ALl.OWEO 10 FlU. IN NA1\IRALLY,
~
~ F F
0:::
o
J:
.....
~ I I
z
o
..... . . .
(I)"
::> I
o -
J:
lL.
o
~
o
a..
i
i
I
~
~
\/ESSEL
CONTAINER
~,
PASSING
\/ESSEL
Ulr BOOII LENCTH FOR
18 CONTAINER WIDE VESSELS
253' BOOM W4G1H FOR 22
CONTAINER WIDE VESSELS (FUTURE)
BOOM
END OF
!:i
Ii
i!
~
97'-:-2.
.,
--
~
,DOCiCED
VESSEl.
225'
:'. .~
\....
...~:.~..:
~
-- ~ ~
EU.VA1ION -40' liLT
~~ SEE NOTE 2
EU.VAllON -42' IlL1) FACE OF
CONCRETE (FIXED)
Ed
LOCAll0N
SEE RG, 4 FOR
SECTION
N,T,S.
5
([[[[[[l]]]!)
FIG. 6 - DREDGIN.G CROSS SECTION - CONTAINER WHARF
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revlsed)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet...!... of ~o. (Revised May 2003)
* * . 0 . * ~
:z
1=:1'
In
:;)
o
:c
u..
o
....
e::
o
Q..
I
I
I
800
1 ' t
CONTAINER WHARF'.l. I
I "'" .-IW K STAIIIU:A1lON I ,SA K STABlLZAllON
,~/-'- I \
10 ~"./ MLTElN.. +1.'1.... I \ 10
" , \ I #'
^ ~ io" -' <a7 /I"
_10 11m v, //~ \. I /'ff _10
-' V ,/ /V./' \ ..........ElOSrllNO CH.v!NEL.......... /'j
_~o \. , /' /1/ ./ >.. \ ./ I...............;" -20
_:.0 :=... ...,- ~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~I~RJGE ELEy,-4Q' MLT -- -...,.( / -30
BANK /',./V//../'"\ '. J I "
_M1 ~, /./ /./ ./ ~ "l \. _:-=- =:r=+:;::-= __ _ / j _..n
_M ~ SEE NOlE 2 I I _!\o
, ../ I:NJY~ MAIN_lEI ~CE
I ... ELEY. . -51' ~D .01 EROEPllI IIl~GE
-'''' nEllA llllN -42' L T _An
I I
I I ~~
I, ~SECTlON ~ AREA TO BE DREDGED/EXCAYATED
, N.T,S ____ UIlITS OF FEDERAU.Y
I AUtHORIZED ~D
I MAINTAINED CH~NEL
I I ~
" YERllCAL SCALE ElCAGCERATED
2, lDIPORARILY DREDGED FOR
, I CONSlRUCllON PURPOSES ONLY,
I I ARE" WlU. BE ALLOWED TO FlU. IN
N"lURAU.Y,
I I
~ ;
I I
. I
I I
J !
IllO
800
710
700
110
100
lIIO
100
4llO
400
-
-
210
200
.. . .
@
,. lGO . 0 . IGO I. 200 2lIO - - 400 450 100 lIIO 100 I. 700 710 800 IllO 100
ISEERG, 4 FOR
.
.
7 - CRUISE DOCK CROSS SECTION
FIG.
.
-
~
f1
~ I
:::>
<( I
z -
~
(/)
:::>
o
:I:
u..
o
~
o
Q.
[[[[]]lll]!
.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet 2- of ~o. (Revised May 2003)
Cf~"'Cf-rr:,
CRUISE
VESSEl.
2.0'
ELEV,
FENDER
100'-0.
S1EEL SHEET PILE BUIJCHEAD,
55'-0.
CRUISE TERUlNAI.
BUILDING
NOTES:
I. COH<:EPlUAL DESIGN USING
17,Cf F,F,
ELEV,
I
I
R
:I
@
ADVANCE MAINTENANCE
AND OVERDEPTH DREDGE
ELEVAnON -42' MLT
SEE FIG, 4 FOR LOCAnON
SECTION
[[[[[I]ll)
CRUISE DOCK
.100 aD 4ClO 4IlO BOO 5IICl BOO eao 100 ISO 1000 10lIO 1100
1r
FIG. 8 - DREDGING CROSS SECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ..l... of 30. (Revised May 2003)
110 100 10 0 10 100 110 100
210
~
.
u..
o
I-
~
o
a...
!Q.
..Q.
-10
-20
-30
-40
-5_0
.
~
t
l
I
SHEE1Pl\E_ I
aILICHEAD """"'"
~ ,rCRUISE DOCK
T
1Q.
Jl
=1!l
::asL
::a
~
-&0
TO BE DREDGEO/EXCAVA TED
EXAGGERATED
0SE~ON
I
I
I
Ed
BOO
410
4ClO
aD
.100
210
100
110
100
10
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
t
!.
o
10
lGO
110
[[[[ill
lL.
o
Ii:
Q
.
5',
TVP,
115'
359'
4(1'
.
.
FIG. 9 - CONTAINER YARD CROSS SECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ~ of 00. (Revised May 2003)
19' 77' 19' JI9' 77'
TVP. TVP.
10 5'
~
19
7r
TVP.
1.
HI'
c
1
I
I
i
,
I
i
.
I
REPOSITIONED
PORI' RQAD-
100' 75'
PtPiiJNr+
rASiiioo II
;
@)
8'
Mil'
90'-2
eo'
... .
E
I
i
I
I
s'
CONTAINER TERMINAL SECTION
iii'
e'
~
lILT - 0.0'
NOW - +0.3'
MLLW - 0.0'
9
FOR LDCAnON
100' 1~'
SEE FIG, 4
@)PORT ROAD R,O,W,
@ununES CORRIDOR
0' 5Q'
@CONCMlE .l:RSEY BARRIER @SUILDING AREA
@TOP PIa< @REEF'ER CONTAINERS
@30' UClHT STANDARD @NOT USED
@HAlQI COVER NO. (!)LOAD LANE @40' OtASSISIDRY CONTAINERS
@12O' UGIlT STANDARD (!)8Y-PASS LANE @)GRClUNDED EMPlY StORAGE
@1WO LANE RE1URH ROAD (!)EllPRESS LANE (5 LANES) @EICPfGS LANE (4 LANES)
KEY NOTES:
(DPOST PANAMAX \USEL
@lllO' GUAGE GANlRY CRANE
@RUI8ER 11RED GANlRY CRANE
[l]]]J]lI]j
FIG. 10 - INTERMODAL YARD CROSS SECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet 10 of' ~o . (Revised May 2003)
- - -
II
~
(i)
.'
.,
m
w
z
::J
~
~
I
;
~
I
.....m~ @
KEY NOTES:
CD 1'/PICAL S1aIWt YMD 1RACIC
(i) 1'/PICAL \'lIlRICIHO YARD 1RACIC
Q)M8Dt 1IllED OAIllRY CRANE
@)'nIl>> P1ac
(I) IllUHDARY FEJ<<:E
(!) '20" UGlIT ST~
(!) 4ft atAI8IS
(!)c:o:aE1E aRS!EY BARRIER
@)Rl_~_
s GRCll/lIIID DQI1Y SIOlIAllE
INTERMODAL YARD SECTION
. . .
FI G. 11 CRUISE TERMINAL CROSS SECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) - -
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel, - -
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas. I
Sheet II of 1>>0. (Revised May 2003)
- -
J
I
.
::::..
rt -
-
-
-
CRUISE I
PARKING LOT VESSEL ~
W -
Z
::J -- 'N, 12,0
~ ~
ROAD I
'< ~~ ~
::t
a::
mv, -",' ""'" ,) 7 0
J:
ELEV, -40.0' (PHASE ~
::>
<
ADVANCE MAINTENANCE Z
AND OVEROEPTH DREDGE
ELEVATION -42' !AlT 0
~. . .
(/)
::::>
0
J:
{ROAD
~ ~ .,I -
-
ARST FlUSH POND
I
~
I ..
SECTION I
Ed ~
SEE AG, 4 FOR lOCATION ;:
,
'-
....-
:_<
'-,
",
I
I
I
@
.
~
-
iWl
lfi
LEGEND
. . . . . I m.tJIOlWn' ~DlT
.... . ----- ARIA L1VEE
NOTES
, VERIlCAL SCALE EXAGGERATED
FIG. 12 - DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT AND
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revisec&6ERM CONSTRUCTION
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet 1L of ;0. (Revised May 2003)
FM. I.AND5c:N'E
1:1
:700'
SUnFIC.4 FOltUltA~;
BERM CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (BASED ON HYDRAUUC DREDGING ONLY)
A DRIDCIID aM'IIRW. DRWlNG IlfIA I&L . 0ClIiBIRUCIID PMALLIL AND MMCIHl' 10 1HE AUGNMINI'
OIl .... PRCIPOIID...... 1MII DRWlNG MIA w.&. . _ r ~ ~Y eao FEET WIDE ON AVEIWl(.
1DotPOIWI'I' IUCIMINI' MFA COHI'MMNl' L&\'ID WlU. . CClNSI1lUCJED USING IllRROW MCrERW. FROM
IfIIlDE 1HI CClNWtII8IT N!D.
'lICE DRIIIGID YA1IIUL lAILL . JIUIIIID 1Il1O 1HE ~ MfIA 10 AN INDNJ!I. DIPIH 01
APPRCIIIIM1ILY &7 FEET. 1l1li IIA1EIUL w.&. 1HDI . __ AND IIRID UNIL II' CONlIOLIDA1ES
10 A IIRIID IIIPnI or .u flIlllKllM1lJ.Y I FEET.
ONCE lIfI: IMIIRML IS SUPPICIINILY DRY. II' ... lIE USID 10 CCINSIIlUCI' A _ _ IIllHJ IINIID
.. .u mD1I1IM1ILY 10 FEET 'WI. WIIIt SIll aaPIS or a FEET ttllRIDlNW. 10' fOOJ \IRIIIlM.,
NeD A 'RIP WIDIH . 10 FEET. 1l1li .. 111&. UK 1HE IXIIIItC I'AIIIIIN _ IllUItDNMClII'
CCINfMMIII' &IVII M A .....
ClNCIlIll ... .. IIDI 0ClIiBIRUCIID If WILL . Sf8IZID WIIH PIMI' ..-n:RW. AND INIlSCW'ID.
2
a
.
FIG. 13 - RAILROAD CORRIDOR-CRUISE ROAD-BERM CROSS SECTION
- -
- -
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along t~e Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet Jl.. of ~. (Revised May 2003)
- -
t GO' ACCIIS CClIIIIlIR - -
~ ~
trur _ MILIIMD CIIlIlIIIIl IlIlI' CIIIIIE IllIAD IlIN' 130' IMDSCW'E BalM IS' ""SET8IlQC
- -
au: filii)
10'
II' II' I .,. L .,. .. llO' lIll' 60' 60'
~ ,.J (rIP.) 1 -
t CIlUISI 'IIIlIIIlM. I )i
M:CaIIlINVIlY :l 70'
SEI'8ACK PIXE GW.Y
I fAtDoIENT (DIWlWl! rASDlEJII)
I I 5 n
I:
.-. .... 01_ 'IM:Illl _
FIllllI 1 CllII K war DID 10 4
ON 1111 WI' DD
SECTION
N.T.a.
14 - CRUISE ROAD - BERM - DETENTION POND CROSS SECTION
FIG.
([[[)]]]]]!1
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet .Ji.. of~. (Revised May 2003)
m
z
o
t-gGG
VI
~
o
:c
u...
o
I-
ex:
o
Q,.
;
8
I
'"
~
t lODO'IIUE ROAD
lODlMUE ROAD
(80' R.o.w,)
t POND
I
I
I
I
I 50' PlPEUNE f:ASEYENI'.
I
I
DEIENIION POND 20'
WIImt VARIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20'
130' lANll!!::W IlEIlN
10'
100' __ DMV
, 1.5-'
ID!L~Q'
80'
PRDPClIED WDEl'AlIDN
( SPIICIRUSH-nP.)
t
80'
III
q, CRUIIIE TIIlMIW.
ACIDS RCMIIMY
III
@
SECTION
-
NoT'"
(j)Q~~
if.:t<4
~ ~
-+OVlO-
-1\-+-1\
1_ ." 0 .,.
'" 0 :s --
VI tp g
o 0 0 VI
-1\ a. "< -+
~. 0
I \)J S e.. ::s
O. o)l.
. J::S c:
o \Q ~
- =I ~ ~
"J:] -. .... _,
~ VI \. -+
~. '" tp "<
~ g~o
ll.:s
~-:t 0
o .
-< -f (j) N
~ :r
N X -. ~
8 0 "'0 01
VI ..... N
W. \. 0
__ :r_
o "J:]
:s ~
:s <
l') _.
- VI
. l')
ll.
--
~I. 0 0
V'\
~
o
:z:
~
o
f-
~
o
Q..
15 - CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE BERM PLANTING PLAN
FIG.
ClWllSlZ2II PI.NlT1XG PIT
FIla QI:ClC1lU, I!D(
:.:a"1.MlIIIL ~ ...... CMllUl<IA DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
LM: ewe - CMJII:US WlOIlWlo\ MIIIIlWlIrNM!llln' - ~ ~ YI& ~
LllaOII.Y ... - 1'11.8 TIIIII4 QN1I1IlII - 't1IIll _ 0lIIUI
MYMIWlItllU.Y - LEX X AlIDlUATA ~ ~~: ~~
Df.ClDUOUS 1IUII ~ - nrA WlQIIQ\
lWJI lM'IlDS - 1ltolCIlllIlII lllITICM\Rl _A""
IUR ewe _ CIllIIIlUI ~ H~OUS LAVER
CIIlM IUI - WIllS PUI!I&A lNlIOO IULY - MUIUIIIEIIIIA DWOSA
IIIlCIQIIH . PLUII - PlMIUlI ~ _ aIlDIDI - NClIlOPOGClN .ClIJlNa
SHIIIIllD ewe - CMIICUS SlHIiWIIl:I ClCIWa'AII - _ I.-crA
WoGIIl ewe - CIUIIlCllI ... GIll CQISJ IUU' - IIJIUJeIIllM lIN'IJMIS
'&LOW ewe - CIIDCUlI PtCLOS IIUIIO IIA ClD - ~ lA'mlUlII
INlDl CIINS - II!IllNIIllUS __ 'llIW:I.I.l!lUJ
l\'EIlClIlIIN ..... I8D1H RA1llIIl __ - ~ 1IUSSIM
.... IlIRID ItllU.Y - LEX 0lRCUfA 'IU~ 1IllAS 1M IIMU.OIr - 1IM.\WIlSICUS NI8ClIIIUlI
IWlOOIl HClU.Y - Ill( ~E 'DIHlIClN'
IWIIIIlI - IWIlIIUS PUIIlDII
PllIIIII"I IlllW' - Ill( X ArlIIllWA 'fWIIIII'
1IllAS MIl - LIUllClI'HnI.W FlIllIII'llllIN
1M III'IIRI - ~ CIIIlfIIlo\
YN.I'at - IlIllIalrllll\
Ed
~
8
.;
9
~
~
;\
1-'
o
. a Q 0
E ~ ~
sa f1O. ~noii
sa f1O. 18 FOR SECTlOHS
sa F'IO, 12 F'OR IH1ERW
CONSTR\lCTlON SECTION
TYPICAL TREE PLANTING
DECIDUOUS TREE
f.VEROREEN TREE
s.w.L TREE -
1"5'TYPICAl 500lF PLANTING SECTION
~
I
~
16 - CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE BERM ELEVATION AND SECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channe
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ~ of 30, (Revised May 2003)
FIG.
DECIDUOUS 1REE
SHRUBS
EVERGREEN 1REE
SMALL TREE
.
~ p p
......
a:::
o
:J:
f-
::;,
<
z
~ ~ 0 0
VI
::;,
o
:J:
PINE GULLY
(DRAINAGE
EASEMEI
S' MAINTENANCE
AREA ACCESS
BERM ELEVATION
H.r.s.
10'
100' MURE CRUISE liRMlNAI..
ACCESS ROAD R.O,W.
i
~
~
~
:;
75' SE'T8ACK
swu. TREE
50'
60'
15
SEE FIG,
TYPICAL BERM CROSS SECTION
N.T.S,
17 - SUBMERGED BAY BOlTOM ACRE,AGE
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Ga/veston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet J1. of 30. (Revised May 2003)
FIG.
.
i
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
...~_.
@
LEGEND
r::=:J Panel Extent
D Bayport Footprint
~ ," " :: Mitigation Area Footprint
D Jurisdictional Wetlands
. (Bayport 19,7 Acres)
(Mitigation Area 12.9 Acres)
.. Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
(99.4 Acres)
_ Non-Jurisdictlonal wetl.
' Mosaic (Bayport 27,2 A
o Intertidal Mudflats
(1,6 Acres)
_ Open Water (Mitigation Area:
" ,," Mean High Water
N Ditches (Mitigation Area)
-----------------
N
+ --
2000 0 2000 Feet
L-.- J
!
,
Wetland Data i
Panel Key
Bayport Marine Terminal
Envlronmentallmpact Statemont
-
-
-
.
WETLAND DATA PANEL KEY
of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet l.L of..3..Q... (Revised May 2003)
.
.
.
.
.
LEGEND
Panel Extent
Bayport Footprint
Mitigation Area Footprint
CJ
iii
fA1
D
_ Open Water (Mitigation Area
,'\,. Mean High Water
N Ditches (Mitigation Area)
----.--------.----
N
+
Acres)
Wetlands
Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
Mosaic (Bayport 27,2 W
Intertidal Mudflats .
(1,6 Acres)
1000_
Wetland Data
Panel A
Bayport Marine Terminal
Environmental Impact Statement
Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Bayport 19,7 Acres)
(Mitigation Area 12,9
Non-Jurisdictional
(99.4 Acres)
WETLAND DATA PANEL A
~
"_~ ,fi~!
Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ~ of.JQ.. (Revised May 2003)
LEGEND
[~] Panel Extent
D Bayport Footprint
~.'.'.'.': Mitigation Area Footprint
o Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Bayport 19.7 Acres)
(Mitigation Area 12,9 Acres)
_ Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
(99.4 Acres)
g Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
Mosaic (Bayport 27,_eS)
D Intertidal Mudflats
(1,6 Acres)
_ Open Water (Mitigation Area
" ,," Mean High Water
N Ditches (Mitigation Area)
.__..---_._-~_.~_..._~----_...._--_._---
---...~._-~----~,~_.__._---
N
+ 10001
0 I.___-..___~__I
Wetland Data
PanelS
Bayport Marine Terminal
Environmental Impact Statement
-
-
-
.
.
WETLAND DATA PANEL B
~ ~
Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet 1.0 of 30. (Revised May 2003)
.
.
.
.
.
Extent
Bayport Footprint
Mitigation Area Footprint
Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Bayport 19,7 Acres)
(Mitigation Area 12,9 Acres)
Wetlands
NOn-JUrisdictlonal_nds
Mosaic (Bayport 2 res)
Intertidal Mudflats
(1.6 Acres)
Open Water (Mitigation Area
Wetland Data
PanelC
Bayport Marine Tennlnal
Environmental Impact Statement
N
+.
1000 Feel
LEGEND
r=J Panel
IB
..
III
D
-
,'\,' Mean High Water
N Ditches (Mitigation Area)
o
Non-Jurisdictional
(99,4 Acres)
o
.. .'... .
- - -
.<', FIG.21 WETLAND DATA PANEL C
,~\:;fJ" .. ';, ;';~~~~=:"{I~:~lwilllil~.r:~i:; ~::..;..- ,
of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ..R. of ao. (Revised May 2003)
LEGEND
r=:J Panel Extent
D Bayport Footprint
~ ~ " " ~: Mitigation Area Footprint
D Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Bayport 19,7 Acres)
(Mitigation Area 12.9 Acres)
III Non-Jurisdictional Wetlands
(99,4 Acres)
liit'~J Non-Jurisdictional W.s
iillllR Mosaic (Bayport 27, s)
D Intertidal Mudflats
(1,6 Acres)
rJ"l!!Jjll~ln Open Water (Mitigation Area
" ': Mean High Water
N Ditches (Mitigation Area)
N
+ e
0 1000 Feet
, ,
Wetland Data
Panel 0
Bayport Marine Tllnnlnal
Envlronmentallmpac;t Statement
-
-
-
.
WETLAND DATA PANEL D
~
.
.
Acres)
Wetlands
Area
Area)
____0.
No. 21520(Revised)
Ship Channel,
e
'000 Feet
Wetland Data
PanelE
Bayport Marino Tarmlnal
Environmental Impact Statement
LEGEND
r=:J Panel
Extent
D Bayport Footprint
Mitigation Area Footprint
Jurisdictional Wetlands
(Bayport 19,7 Acres)
{Mitigation Area 12,9
D
..
III
D
~w.mml Open Water (Mitigation
" \,. Mean High Water
N Ditches {MItigation
Non-JurisdictIonal
(99,4 Acres)
Non-JurisdictIonal we. I s
Mosaic (Bayport 27.2 )
Intertidal Mudflats
(1,6 Acres)
Authority
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas
Sheet Z 3 of -2Q.. (Revised May 2003)
N
+
.
o
.
WETLAND DATA PANEL E
.
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS & FINAL M~'f~GAT~ON PLAN
-
23A
FIG.
~
~
~ ~ p
~
~ I f i
t;, ,
~Iibi
~
~
CI'l,",Ci''1:J
::r -. I) 0
,,-t<4
" 0 " 0
~.....~.....
Ir;?~g J:
..... en W 2
o I) I) en
..... 0.,,< ~
". 0
I~ ~ I) ::s
o. 0')1.
, J:::r c
I) U) ~
_'-+0
, ::r,
.,., -. .... -.
" en '"~ ~
:S. '"' 0:, "<
en 0 I)
" c "<
Q.::S"O
:t..<'o z
I)' 4 ~
"< -t CI'l N
" ::r
N )( _. _
81)"0 U1
w~'"'~
_ =ro_
I) .,.,
::s "
::s <
" -.
- en
. "
a.
-
fj
N
Legend
'. Created weUand (66.8 acres). excludes existing weUands
rn Enhanced Coastal PraIrie (71 acres)
eg Unimpacted Jurlsdiclional WeUand (9.02 acres)
IlllIJ] Impacted Jurisdictional WeUand (3.88 acres)
lIlIITlIlI8
FIG. 24 - BAYPORT OFFSITE DREDGE PLACEMENT AREA
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet z,5 of~. (Revised May 2003)
I
~
~ ~ ~
0::
o
5 :
c(
z
o
~ =.0
::)
o
~
LA.
o
Ii:
o
Q.
I
I
I
@
/or
I
NOTE: MARSH CELL TO BE
- CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CURRENT BENEACAL
USES GROUP MARSH MAINTENANCE
AND MONITORING PLAN
CEDAR POINT
HSC ATKINSON
ISLAND MARSH
CMIIL NO. I
SPILMAN
ISLAND
FIG. 25 - PROPOSED PINE GULL Y EROSION PROTECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) - -
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel, - -
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas. 150' 50'
Sheet 2... of 30. (Revised May 2003)
-
0
C\I
0
CD
PLAN ()
~
LEGEND ~
<? FLOW DIRECTION I
AREA IMPACTED [ill] EXTENT Of' PROPOSED EROSION I
12.158 SQ.FT.- 0.28 AC. ."a PROTECTION (RIPRAP)
.
SEE FIG. 4 fOR @
1
SECTION
A
1
1
~
I
S
Q
PROPOSED PINE GULLY EROSION PROTECTION
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet Z" of 30. (Revised May 2003)
26
FIG.
I
50'
55'
20'
m
~
E
~
o
0\
2
BXIS'l'ING JWN
CBANNBL
PLAN 0
~
~
i
I
I
EROSION
AREA IMPACTED
11,700 SQ.FT, = 0.27 AC.
LEGEND
<)::0 FLOW DIREcnON
mm EXTENT OF PROPOSED
o 0 PROTEcnON (RIPRAP)
1
1
fa
I
~
@
SEE FIG. 4 FOR LOCA11ONI
SECTION
FIG. 27 - PROPOSED PINE GULLY EROSION PROTECTION
'Port' of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet 2,8 of 10. (Revised May 2003)
I
50'
100'
20'
I
(:)
o
...
0000000000000000 00
oooooooo~ooooooo 00
0000.000 00000000
00000000 0000000 ooe
00 OOOOOOOQOOOOOOoo 00
0000 oOOOOOOODOOOOOOoo 000
0000 00000000000000000 ooe
00 ooooooooOPooooooooo 00
000000000000000000000
pooooooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooooooooo
/000000000000000 0000000000000000000 ooe
0000000000000000 0000000000000000000000
,000000000000000Hoooooooooooooooooo ooe
0000000000000000 0000000000000000000000
10000000000000000 0000000000000000 001
oooooooooooooooOPO 0000000000000000000
~ooooooooOOOOOOdOOO~oooooooooooooo 001
booooooooooooooopoo 00000000000_000
0'0'0"" O't) 'C1'O' 0'0"0 CTt) 'O'tf OVO 'c:TO ovo t:rt)' (TO tn
600000000000000000000000000000000 00000
'00000000000000000000000000000000000 001
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
'00000000000000000000000000000000000 001
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
'00000000000000000000000000000000000 001
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~ooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOQ 001
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
I
I
I
<)c FlOW DIRECllON
~~::!~ EXTENT OF PROPOSED EROSION. @
000 PROTECllON (RIPRAP)
I SEE FIG. 4 FOR l.OCA1lt>>I]
AREA IMPACTED
8,100 SQ.FT. co 0.42 AC.
LEGEND
BXl8TJNG JWN
CIIANNIL
~O
1
SECTION
1
13
I
~
~
28 - BAYPORT NORTH SHORE 20' SOUND ABATEMENT WALL - PLAN VIEW
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet Z' of So. (Revised May 2003)
.
FIG.
I
~
~
o
N
+
N
,...
W
z
:J
J:
:CBMKI ~
IIClClCJ'( IIA'VOU
ElCISIIlC ~
(nil)
&If ElCXOll
PIPI1INE
rAIIIIINl'
18'
----~~=-~~-----
Ed
i
~
I
I
()
SEE FIG. 4 fOR UlCA1
SEE FIG. 28 fOR DETAILS
! E:::e:I
III l'II-ClUr IMIL I,
lit PRE-cASl' lW.L
3154'
i MlPORI' StII' c:HANNIL l
-------
---------
------- ----
o
N
+
N
......
LLJ
Z
::l
:J:
~
~
29 - BAYPORT NORTH SHORE SOUND ABATEMENT WALL-DETAILS
FIG.
[I]1[[IllJ]i
w
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Sheet ~o of .30. (Revised May 2003)
~
IO\/IIlIAl ~ r1I IViIIIXZ rRD::ZNf
1l1li IlUIllWIlII: r1I ;, 'lAIIIlI IMR'l'
10 UIlAA f1I1' raNIDI ML IIIIlI
EOUIKlIIl IIl!II' r1I ..... r.aIIDIJ
@
w
w
~ ~ ~
a::
o
5
c(
z
e B 8
en" 0
:)
o
:I:
~I
o
t:
o
Q.
@
(7)
w
..
'lIP "'..uD __ fa
Iif
I
I
!
~ 8C' ClIl>>C:]L
,., tt ,.
@
_-FIG.
.
.
.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Ga_ton Bay, along the Bayport Ship .nel,
CitJll'f Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1. Sheet!. of 3~.(Revised May 2003)
Bayport Terminal Mitigation Features
FINAL PROPOSED
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 elemepts of the PORA application that have been included to
reduce or mitigate impacts.
1. Buffer Zone and 2. 20-Foot Berm
As shown on the enclosed facility drawings, the terminal will 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 it) the project will be buffer.
Within the buffer zone, a 20-foot tall and 130-foot wide earthen berm will be constructed
as shown. The portion of the berm, formerly located between the container and cruise terminals,
has been relocated. This section will now be constructed between the cruise terminal and EI
Jardin (Figure 2). This will provide an enhanced level of mitigation for the potential noise,
light, and aesthetic impacts to the EI J~din community.
In addition, POHA will plant the berm with a mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs,
which will minimize noise, light and visual impacts to the surrounding community. The planting
will be composed of native deciduous and evergreen species that' are typically found within the
Galveston Bay area (Figures 15 &. 16). Approximately twenty different species will be used to
create a natural appearance and view from nearby residential areas. Additionally, the planting
plan has been designed so that the area will develop into a self-sustaining natural environment
within a few short years. Because the berm is being constructed from dredged material, the
applicant will 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 will be included.
3. Seventy-Five Foot Set Aside
The PHA is committing the 7S-foot wide strip located between the vegetated berm and
Pine Gully (9.3 acres) to be set aside for habitat pwposes and no future development (Figure
13). This area will remain in its present natural condition, thus maintaining water quality
functions.
- 1 -
5/6/03
4. Channel Setback
~eport of Houston Authority Ne1520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport ~hip Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment I, Sheet ~ of 3tJ:(Revised May 2003)
.
Areas shoreward of the existing channel boundary will 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, which results in a reduction of light and noise
impacts.
5. North Shore Slope Protection
Construction is complete on a slope protection and planting program for the north
shoreline of the Bayport channel. While the rip-rap 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.
6. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
Dredged material excess to that needed for site development will be placed offsite. The
material will 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 (Figure 24). Approximately
200 acres will ultimately be constructed.
This use of dredged material will prevent the material from being disposed of as a waste
and conserve valuable space in confined disposal areas. It will also provide improvements in .
water quality in Galveston Bay and replace wetland habitat lost to subsidence or erosion.
7. Cruise
The original Bayport Master plan (1998) and permit application contained a five berth
Cruise Terminal. The attached three-cruise berth plan reduces the submerged areas dredged by
23 acres, submerged areas filled by 21.3 acres (90% reduction) and the offsite ~ged material
disposal by over a million cubic yards
8. Pre-Entry Gate Relocation
The optimal operational location of the pre-entry gate is very near the EI Jardin
subdivision. In response to the concerns of residents, the pre-entry gate has been relocatecJ
approximately 5,000 feet west ofits original location, as shown on the enclosed drawings (Figure
2).
9. Wetland Property Acquisition 'and Mitigation
The verified wetland delineation of the project site by the Corps provides that there are
19.71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site of which 19.28 will be impacted by the project
To mitigate these and other biotic impacts, the POHA has acquired a 173.5-acre tract of land
.
-2-
5/6103
.
.
e e
(Memorial Tract) 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
(more than 3.4: I compensation for impacted, jurisdictional wetlands) and the enhancement of
more than 12 acres of existing wetland. The project will also preserve 23.7 acres of forested and
shrub uplands and 71 acres of restored coastal prairie. In addition, a conservation easement will
be imposed on the entire I 73.5-acre tract. This will preserve a sizeable block of diverse habitat
that is upstream of Armand Bayou Nature Center, and within its watershed. The applicant
believ~s that this permanent protection of 173.5 acres offsets the impacts to aquatic resources
located at the Bayport Terminal site. A more detailed discussion of the plan is contained
elsewhere.
Storm Water Management and Treatment
The project will include a variety of mitigative features to 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.
10. 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 will capture the first inch of rainfall into a
holding pond, as shown in the master plan drawing. This will allow the TSS to be retained in the
pond, decreasing the discharge of sediments into the Bayport Ship Channel and Pine Gulley.
11. South Terminal Retention Pond - The loss of infiltration resulting from the concrete
surfacing of the site would result in an increased rate of storm water discharge to Pine Gulley. To
maintain the undeveloped discharge rate after project construction, the applicant will install a
retention pond in addition to the first flush pond. The function of this structure is to capture and
hold stormwater in excess of the first inch and release it slowly. The delayed release of
stormwater will prevent increased flooding or disruption of the Pine Gulley ecosystem.
To further enhance water quality fimctions, 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 will grow to cover the entire 12-15 acre pond bottom. To
discourage excess biomass build-up, the pond bottom will be mowed once annually, while the
sides will be mowed 3-4 times per year to prevent loss of capacity.
12. Inlet Treatment Units and High Area ImDact 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 will have isolated drainage
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
...Iveston Bay. along the Bayport Ship Channel.
Wy of Pasadena. Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1. Sheet 3 of ~(Revised May 2003) - 3 - 5/6/03
e
e
basins, which have inlet treatment units that remove TSS and oil and grease, with the discharged
water then proceeding to the first flush basin. .
13. 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 will continue this commitment. It may include diesel-emulsion
fuel for RTG's and' yar~ tractors owned by the applicant. Diesel-emulsion fuel will to reduce
NOx emissions by 25% and particulate emissions by 30%.
14. On-site FirelHazmat
The applicant will have an on-site Fire Department, with a Hazmat team
IS. Police
Bayport will have an on-site Police Department.
16. Lighting
The Design elements have been developed to minimize glare, light spill, light trespass,
and light pollution to surrounding areas, especially residential areas. These elements are:
.
All lighting fixtures will be of the "dark sky" type developed by major manufacturers.
All high mast lighting will 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.
17. Cruise Road
The original Master Plan routed cruise tenninal 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 (Figure 2).
18. TodvilleIPort Road Intersection
To address neighborhood concerns about container truck traffic on Todville Road, the
applicant bas redesigned the intersection. This plan will eliminate the existing intersection and
replace it with new intersections between (1) Port Road and Cruise Road, and (2) Cruise Road
and Todville Road. This change is reflected on the facility drawings. '
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) .
Galveston Bay. along the Bayport Ship Channel.
City of Posadena. Harris County. Texas. - 4 _ 5/6/03
Attachment 1. Sheet II- of H: (Revised May 2003)-
MAY , ;:vn
e
e
. 19. Environmental Management System
The applicant will develop and implement an Environmental Management System that
meets the requirements for ISO 14001 certification.
20. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Construction BMP's
The POHA will implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan that will identify best
management practices and monitor their effectiveness by sampling stormwater at outfalls at least
once per quarter. Project specific plans will also include BMP's to control erosion and minimize
particulates in stormwater runoff during all phases of construction.
.21. Waste Minimization
The POHA will 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.
22. 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 will 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 (LeS) area is in the chassis
parking area, as shown on the facility drawing. The designated SO-ft x 20-ft containment area is
sloped from the four sides towards a sump located in the center. The sump will 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
materials can be pumped out and properly disposed of. The shut off valve will prevent the
hazardous materials from entering the stormwater system. When the sump has been thoroughly
cleaned and all the hazardous contaminants removed, the valve will be opened and the area will
function as a typical catch basin for rainwater. The designated area will be marked by stripping
and appropriate bollards linked by chain to limit the parking to containers only with leaking
materials.
23. 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 long-term noise source, the applicant will use drilled shafts for the container
. facility as an alternative.
)0 of Houston Authority No. 21520{Revised)
;alveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
;ity of Pasadena, Harris C~nty, Texas. - 5 - 5/6103
l\ttachment I, Sheet 5 of :>>CRevised May 2003)
e
e
24. Tangent Pier vs. Sheetpile Construction
.
The standard construction technique at water's edge involves sheetpiles that are driven
into the earth. The applicant will use the Tangent Pier construction technique for the 7,000 foot
container wharf. This will reduce both water quality and noise impacts.
25. North Shore Noise Wall
A twenty-foot pre-cast concrete wall has been designed to -mitigate the potential noise
impacts to the North Shore Communities (Figures 28 & 29). Additionally, there will be
enhancement planting to ensure at least three trees every 20 linear feet on the North side of the
wall. Loblolly Pines will be planted where needed (Figure 29).
26. Spreader Bars
To further reduce the potential noise impacts to the North Shore communities, the PHA will
installing impact noise reductions system on all wharf crane spreader bars utilized at Bayport.
Air Initiatives
27. General Conformity - The applicant will reduce general conformity related emissions below
the 25-ton per year de minimus threshold to decrease air emissions during construction.
Contractors will bid on varying construction scenarios based on emission calculations and the
25-ton threshold. Bidders will be required to use a ''NOx calculator" developed by the applicant
that will consider TCEQ approved technologies such as Tier n engines and the use of PuriNOx
fuel in emissions calculations.
.
28. Texas Emission Reduction Program. (TRRP) - Contractors are requested in construction
contracts to make an attempt to secure grants and other incentives associated with TRRP under
. Senate Bill 5.
29. On-road Diesel Grade Fuel- Port operations will include the use of on-road diesel grade fuel
in all off-road equipment instead of higher sulfur content off-road diesel. This ensures that
equipment emissions are kept to a minimum.
30. Equioment Maintenance - Regular maintenance checks on all equipment ensures that
emissions remain at levels recommended by equipment manufacturers. Procedures will include
an automatic printout for equipment in need of regular maintenance. Recommended tire
pressures will be maintained in all equipment ensuring maximum fuel economy and thus reduced
emissions. An aggressive engine overhaul program will minimize effects of engine degradation
and prevent increased emissions.
31. Eauioment Operation - Whenever possible, equipment will be refueled during evening hours
when temperatures are cooler to minimize evaporation and fugitive emissions. The applicant
will encourage the use of off-road equipment later in the day to decrease ozone impacts where
feasible and practical.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) .
Galveston Bay. along the Bayport Ship Chamel.
City of Pasadena. Harris County. Texas.
Attachment 1. Sheet " of Jt(Revised May 2003)- 6 - 5/6/03
.
.
.
e
e
32. Stage II Vapor Recovery - All gasoline storage tanks will be fitted with Stage II vapor
recovery equipment to minimize emissions during fueling and dispensing of product.
33. Terminal Design - Operating the intermodal yard within the terminal minimizes the travel
distance between the terminal and rail yard, which reduces traffic congestion, vehicle mileage,
and related emissions.
34. Eauipment Purchases - The use of low emissions vehicles when feasible in the on-road fleet
reduces emissions associated with gasoline engines. Purchasing the cleanest diesel engines
available for off-road equipment w~~n feasible will also reduce impacts to air quality. ,
35. Dust Control - Dust control projects such as watering, road maintenance, and silt fencing
will minimize the natural entrainment of particulate matter during construction activities and
operations during windy conditions.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay. along the Bayport Ship Channel.
City of Pasadena. Harris County. Texas.
Attachment 1. Sheet 1 of l1.(Revised May 2003)
-7-
5/6/03
e
e
How to Use the Bayport Mitigation Summary
This table represents the mitigation measures proposed by the Port of Houston Authority .
(pOHA) and identifies the type of impacts for which the measures will compensate in the
opinion of the POHA. The individual mitigation measures are numbered. Those numbers
correspond to the numbers in the text describing mitigation features. For example, if a reader is
interested in safety mitigation features, the reader will read the descriptions for items 4, 14, 15,
17, 18, 20, and 22. Where a mitigation feature description refers to a figure, that figure contains
additional information about the mitigation.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment I, Sheet g of J't(Revised May 2003)
.
.
.
Port_Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised) .
6alv on Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet q of~(Revised May 2003)
BAYPORT MITIGATION SUMMARY
-
-
Energy Waste Air Water Spill
Conservation Minimization Ouality Quality Safetv Noise Li~ht Asthetics Other Biotics Prevention
1. Buffer Zone ...121 Acres X X X X X
2, 20' High Beon X X X
3. Seventy-five Foot Set Aside & Pine
Gull Preservation
4. Channel Setback 225' X X X I
S. Northshore Slope Protection X X X
6. Otfsite Dredge Material to B~eficia1 X X X
Use
7. Cruise
8. Pre-entry Gate Relocation & X X X
Mitigation
9. Wetland Property Acquisition X X
10. Storm Water - First Flush X X
II. South Terminal Retention Pond X X
I
12, Storm Water Inlet Treatment Units X X X X
and High Impact Area Treatment
13, Alternate Fuel Vehicles: On-Road X X
Trucks/Sedans. Forklifts
14. Fire Department on sitelHazmat X X X
team
I S. Police Department on site X
16. Light pole shielding/glare X X
17. Cruise Road vs. Improved Todville X X X
--
fI
Energy Waste Air Water Spill
Conservation Minimization Oualitv Ouality Safety Noise Light Asthetics Other Biotics Prevention
18. Relocation TodvilleIPort Rd X X X
intersection
19. Environmental Mgmt System X X X
20. Stonn Water Pollution Prevention X X X
Plan &; Construction BMPs
21, Waste Minimization X X
22. Leaking Container Station X X X X
23. Drilled Shaft vs, Piles X
24. Tangent Pier vs. Sheetpile Bulkhead X X X
25. North Shore Noise Wall X
26. Spreader Bars X
27, General Conformity X
28. Texas Emission Reduction Program X
29, On-road Diesel Grade Fuel X
30. Equipment Maintenance X X
31. Equipment Operation X
32. Stage II Vapor Recovery X
33. Tenninal Design X X X
Traffic
34. Equipment Purchases (L VEL, clean X
enldnc)
35. Dust Control X X
.
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
6alveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet 10 of .If.(Revised May 2003)
.
.
.
Port of &ston Authority No. 21520(Raed)
Galveston Bay. along the Bayport Ship Channel.
City of Pasadena. Harris County. Texas.
Attachment 1. Sheet!!. of Jt.(Revised May 2003)
MAY 7 2003
BAYPORT MITIGATION PROJECT DESIGN -
MEMORIAL TRACT
The mitigation project is designed to offset the loss of approximately 19.28 acres of impacted
jurisdictional wetlands. USACE has also identified 0.43 acres of jurisdictional wetlands that will
not be impacted, for a total of 19,71 acres of jurisdictional wetlands within the project footprint.
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, 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 impact to 19.28 acres of jUriSdictional wetland at the Bayport Site at a
mitigation ratio of more than 3.4: 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.
.
The Wetland Design consists of two interacting freshwater wetlands separated by a narrow strip
of coastal prairie. 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. 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.
~
N
~("\(i')-o
4: -. 0 0
0':<<4-
n 0 A 0
:r.....~.....
3-00.....
A 0 :s ..I"
:Slllo;,O
"'ool;;
... a. '< ...
, A, 0
(J\~O:S
:r' O~
I' J::l S.
~ 0 U) :r
_""'0
I........, ::r .,
,-- -. c. -.
0111...
.....00;,"'<
I~g ~
Z:s ."
~.:<O Z
A, 4- 0
< .
i' ~ ~ N
a. )( -. ...
0'" UI
S;:III("\N
o ' :r 0
"'< 0-
:s ~
N :s ~
8 1'-,
-III
, I'
~ a.
-
;
~ . . . . . .'
. . . . . . . .
. .... . . .~-. . .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . , . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
~"."'.,.".'"
~. .. . : : : : : : : : : :
.. ... . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MiU 'alion: Si~e
,.,..Q.."""".,
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'J'.."."""'"
., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
., . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"~..,""""'"
.. . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
.. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .
~~~~~~~J.:~~~~~~~
... ~ ' , , . . ,
:, ~ : : : : :
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.. . . . . .
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Port 01 Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan \, ,l ifi&m
rile Name: Il aldw wuupr .;4'1 I fl,1lc' ":"l:' ri-
rlla Dal!: ~rll ;Ill. 2111;1 ,I'...j,..ul....r:I.jIIIl'..illI
L,ege-nd
MItIGation Site
Ju~~lIictionel W&tllllllde
Oth.W...t.-1!l
CJ
~
.LN
-
~nc;n"'Q
~ -. 0 0
ct ~ <" 4
n 0 C'II 0
:r-h~-h
3"'Qo..,..
C'II 0 ::s ""'-
::s III "'" 0
~ I) "" c:
.... a. ~ ~
, C'II, 0
(J\ ~ I) ::s
:r' o~
C'II J: ::s c:
C'II 0 'C ....
~ :r
"1 ~ 0
1.':"::2. :r "1
-- III C'II -.
~nOJ~
I~ 0 I)
':"T' C -<
_::s"C
^'~o Z
C'II, 4 0
< .
iii' -t (1\
C'II C'II :r N
a. )( -. ....
I) "C U1
3:lIInN
D' :r 0
-< I) ~
N ::s C'II
:s <
8 C'II_,
- III
, C'II
~ a.
-
Oak, Forest
Existing Habitat
Port 01 Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan \.lIISB
File Name: D aid w wet upr ~~t{ I ~I,llc' 'I:'l:' r"
Filii Dati!: P9rll 311. 21113 "...liltl.....r:..,..,,"
Le'ge:nd
PW p..lrle Wetllnd
TFW rlDow F'ol8st W'etllnd
SPW Sh.UOw Pond Wetl.nd
OFW O.k,foi'8~Wetl.nd
IW intertidal Wetl.nd
IV 'OtherW:,t...
North Wetland
(34.40 acreas)
Maximum Water Depths
at Full Pool (ft,)
South Wetland
(36.41 acres)
, ,/~~RD
\ '. llr>{S~
I{~~ Bt'lldll1l:lrk
r"'lhN""~. '0"""'.'''.
Created Wetlands
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
File Name: b aD~W wet3.ap
File Da1l::Aprll:JD,2DD3
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet ,.,. of .!J.(Revised May 2003)
.
e
Coasta
Prairie
Coastal Levee
Prairie (9,7') South Wetlan d
--~
::..~.~..:.: ~'::.:".: .::.::..:::.:::....~
............., '.... ... .................
.....,.,....,.......,-
.............." ..............................
I.............. ..............................
.............. '.............................,
.-........... ,..............................
.-............ ..............................
..............' I......'...........,..........,
...............' ,-............................
N< S
North Wetland
Levee
(7.5')
Taylor
Bayou
..---...........-.....--..--.-.......-.-....---,
I''''
.-1...
I.."
...+.
1.......................................-.
0.0
8.0'
M,l"."_'._M'
6,0'
4.0'
2,0
0,0
e
North Wetland Spillway Elevation +6.0'
South Wetland Spillway Elevation +8.2'
Elevati'ons Bas,ed on NAVD 188
Wetland Cross Se,ction
Port of H9uston Authority
Wetland MItigation Plan
reated
C
Typica
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet 15of~.(Revised May 2003)
\;lIEIB
~"t.lrl H~n(;bllUlrk
r,..Ih.Jj...... ~r ";'1"', r....
File NlIme: b a.~ w wetJap
File Dn: AprllJD, 2DDJ
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
1_ rt of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
veston Bay, along the Bayport SeChannel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment I, Sheet IfD ofJlt:(Revised May 2003)
,",': r-; f {LUV,:!
.
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 indicate~ ,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 cons!3cutive
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
also remove organic materials from the footprint of the levees to improve their foundations and
increase levee integrity.
.
Benchmark Ecological ServIces, Inc.
May 2003
.
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
MAY
~ of Houston Authority NO.120(ReViSed)
.veston Bay, along the Bayport S Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet /7 of -M-.(Revised May 2003)
7 2003
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 1 DO-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, 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
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. 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 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.
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
_ort of Houston Authority No.e520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Port of Houston Authority Attachment 1, Sheet t' of .3'" (Revised May 2003)
Wetland Mitigation Plan
MAY 7 2003
.
Species to be planted in the created wetland
Common Name
Species
Planting Zone
Shoreline Deep 1 Shallow2
X
Soft-stem bulrush
Schoenoplectus ta~~rnaemontani
Arrowhead
Sagittaria Spp.3
X
X
Pickerelweed
Pontederia cordata
X
X
Giant cutgrass
Zizaniopsis miliacea
X
X
Common rush
Juncus effusus
X
Squarestem
spikerush
'Deep Planting Zone - 4.0-5.0 ft. elevations (O.5-1.5'maximum water depth)
2Shallow Planting Zone: 5.0-5.5 fl elevation (0-0.5' maximum water depth)
3May include one or more of several locally occurring spedes
Eleocharis quadrangulata
X
.
The primary species 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. The remaining species will be planted in smaller
areas within the wetland. The overall planting interval will be 1 plant to a maximum of 1.5 meter
spacing (emergent planting zone), or 1 plant to a maximum of 1.5 meter spacing (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.
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 weUand 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 .
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
.'veston Bay, along the Bayport ~ Channel,
~ty of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet l~ of~(Revised May 2003)
I (,.;..iV";
. feet depth at full pool) will not be planted with obligate wetland plants, will be sprigged with
transitional species (facultative wet). The primary colonization mechanism will be encroachment
from planted zones and upland areas, the existing seed bank, 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, 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 prim~ry 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 weUand soil characteristics
(reducing conditions, oxide root channels, etc.).
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
i.; . 'y' ~ ')...n.t';.....
~"ii ti : / !-Vi..;J
e
Port of Houston Authority tt. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment I, Sheet 1.0 of~(Revised May 2003)
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
.
Vegetation
Planted vegetation within the created wetland project area will consist of hydrophytic emergent
species.
Leve~s, and all disturbed areas outside the marsh footprint will be planted with ~ .quick cover
plant such as ryegrass (Lo/ium L sp.), but will be allowed to re-vegetate with native and
introduced plant species from the seed bank. Sprigging of native vegetation 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 latifo/ia). Chinese tallow
is considered an intolerable species and will be controlled within the created wetland throughout
the construction and monitoring phases 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 weUand will be excavated so that deeper, more permanenUy flooded areas occur.
This will increase the likelihood that those portions of the weUand will remain flooded during
normal weather conditions and longer during prolonged periods of drought.
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
At of Houston Authority No. .O(Revised)
:'veston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasade"na, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet '1, of J&l:(Revised May 2003)
MAY 7 2003
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND PROTECTION
In conjunction with mitigation for impacts to 19.28 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 more than 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.
Selected areas will be sprigged with Eastem 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 weUand areas and the area between
the created wetlands and Red Bluff Road. All coastal prairie restoration and maintenance
. programs will be designed to correspond with the neighboring Armand Bayou Nature Center
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
~t. ii ~ ! !.UUJ
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Port of Houston Authority N~1520(Revised)
_Galveston Bay, along the Baypo""'ip Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet 11 of 3't(Revised May 2003)
Management Plan, and where possible coordinated with Nature Center personnel. Sprigging
areas will be planted with densities of 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 more than 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 sediment 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 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 weUand 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.
May 2003
.
.
.
I t...UUJ
.
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
e Port of Houston Authority N.1520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport~hip Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet D ofJLf:(Revised May 2003)
MONITORING
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 II
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
Marsh creation will begin within a year of the date if initial construction at Bayport. 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
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
!...tJI.Ou
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
e'veston Bay, along the Bayport. Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet 2.'tof )a(:(Revised May 2003)
.
have been achieved. Informal monthly site inspections will be conducted during the first growing
season in order to quickly identify potential problems.
Scheduled monitoring events include:
45 days post-pla~ting
The first scheduled monitoring event wil! 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;
o 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 2nd 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.
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
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
.alveston Bay, along the Bayport. Channel,
~ity of Pasadena, Harris County, ~as.
Attachment 1, Sheet 15 of .3'\. (Revised May 2003)
.
wetland and demonstrate that Performance Standards have been achieved. Results of
the inspection will be submitted for USACE review. If USACE concurs with the findings,
Phase I monitoring will be concluded.
Characteristics to be monitored;
o Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative)
o Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative)
o levee integrity (qua"litative)
o Wildlife utilization (qualitative)
o Aerial photograph (quantitative)
Phase II monitoring
Phase " will commence immediately after Phase I is concluded. The objective for Phase " will
be to document the performance of the wetland to ensure that the standards are maintained
over a two-year period. During Phase II, 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 1 st Phase II Growing Season
The first Phase II monitoring event will be conducted at the end of the first Phase "
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 2nd Phase II Growing Season
The second Phase " monitoring event will be a quantitative inspection similar to the first
Phase " inspection. If performance standards have been maintained at the end of the
second Phase " Monitoring event (2 years after performance standards were met) the
monitoring report will serve as the final Phase " report.
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.~. ! i LUOJ
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
e Port of Houston Authority e. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet1.bof?lj.(Revised May 2003)
Characteristics to be monitored;
o Foliar aerial coverage (quantitative)
o Growth of invasive undesirable vegetation (quantitative)
o Levee integrity (qualitative)
o Wildlife utilization (qualitative)
o Aerial photograph (quantitative)
- The objective of the Phase" Inspections is to document maintenance of performance standards
through quantitative sampliD9. If performance standards have been maintained through the end
of Phase " and the wetland will be certified as complete in a letter of Project Certification from
the USACE.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.
.
.
.
.
.
LuL:.:.
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
eort of Houston Authority No. .20(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet 110f";L\.(Revised May 2003)
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:
. . . .
o Post-construction Report,
o Semi-annual Progress Report,
o Phase I and Phase" 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.
Phase I and Phase II 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
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
e
Port of Houston Authority ~ 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bay~Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheetl& ofyt(Revised May 2003)
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
evidence that performance standards have been met. The report will include at a minimum the .
following:
o A summary of quantitative and qualitative data collected,
o Monitoring results and analysis, including photograp8s (when appropriate),
o Site maps showing data collection locations and results, as appropriate,
o Summary of corrective actions taken, and
o Aerial photograph.
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.
.
.
.
e
e
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520{Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, TexQs.
Attachment 1, Sheet 101 of Ji{ (Revised May 2003)
.~) .\'V
200"-~
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
SUCCESS CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The objective of this mitigation project is to replace the ecological functions that are expected to
be lost when jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands are removed, for the construction of
the proposed Bayport Project. 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, 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.
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.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
!.UVv
e
e
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet jo of J'l:(Revised May 2003)
.
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
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 prop~~, 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 TWaB 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 weUands 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
8. 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
weUand development. The footprint of hydrophytic vegetation will be used to provide
supportive evidence of success.
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.
.
.
e
Port of Houston Authoritye No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet Jl of ~ (Revised May 2003)
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Corrective Actions
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 frequenUy 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.
May 2003
e
Port of Houston Authority "0. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet310fYl-.(Revised May 2003)
.
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 I (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 I (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 weUand development and will not be tolerated.
Performance Standards
8. Vegetative cover of undesirable species shall not exceed 10% within the weUand 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
.
Benchmark Ecological Services, Inc.
May 2003
.
.
.
e
e
!O;V
IVi li !
7 ?:-~:~(!
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
Port of Houston Authority No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, TexQs.
Attachment 1, Sheet ;Jof~a{, (Revised May 2003)
completely eliminate this vegetation, the growth and spread of these species must be
controlled.
b. 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.
May 2003
e
Port of Houston Authori~ No. 21520(Revised)
Galveston Bay, along the Bayport Ship Channel,
City of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas.
Attachment 1, Sheet ~of~.(ReYised May 2003)
Port of Houston Authority
Wetland Mitigation Plan
FINAL CERTIFICA liON
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.
May 2003
.
.
.
~ ~...t'V~..C:L. -- Page 1 of9
~~ XC a.Ill eC. 1
'1 .' ,), J" il
.~._.............., ...................-..-----.........-."..-..........--...--........... .---......--............... ....._..~~t:-.f.. ..._e;.....Lf~[.'!J, -
(f \.. ~.. t
A .
U....,j, .
{).,LYV\J\...../yL.L---l T-' ' i f
-
/\ J...-'
L/ ~
P &;
. tv~ ~""
.... ~-~r.~w.-....~_._..._--
,.
~ r'
,5 __ILl
~~C~'
..-;1 "'~. 0
MAY 2
s, - 0 200'J:.
1"y 6. J.
... r;; R r: '1WJJ ~
. .. ~p./l/e :7'of"1'f1"S
-.. , ~""~rU:!)-ARY'S
~F-F'ce
~~5
~
.
e
Feazelle, Debra
.
From: Malone, Norman
Sent: Sunday, May 18,20039:17 PM
To: Feazelle, Debra
Subject: FW: Port Authority Delivers Favorable Outlook On Bayport
You may want to forward this to the Council if you have their mail address, I do not.
Mayor
-----Original Message-----
From: Port of Houston Authority [mailto:fgriffin@poha.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:54 PM
To: malonen@ci.la-porte.tx.us
Subject: Port Authority Delivers Favorable Outlook On Bayport
( BW) (TX-PORT-OF-HOUSTON) Port Authority Delivers Favorable Outlook On
Bayport
Business Editors
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 16, 2003--
.
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers releases final environmental impact
statement on proposed container and cruise terminal facility, paving
the way for construction permit
The Port of Houston Authority (PHA) today welcomed the release by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of the final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) on the proposed Bayport Container and Cruise
Terminal Facility. The FEIS evaluates issues related to the PHA's
planned facility, including potential impacts on air quality, water
quality, noise, security, traffic and other environmental and social
factors. The document reflects consideration of all public comments
that were submitted following the November 2001 release of the USACE's
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The appendix to the FEIS
in~ludes all comments submitted on the DEIS and the USACE's response
to those comments.
Public comments on the FEIS are due by June 16, 2003. The USACE
will consider comments on the FEIS in the finalization of their Record
of Decision (ROD), which is scheduled for July 28, 2003. The ROD will
authorize one of three actions related' to a construction permit for
Bayport: 1) issuance of the permit, 2) issuance of the permit with
modifications or conditions, or 3) denial of the permit.
"The Corps has done an outstanding job in its diligent review of
the proposed Bayport plan," stated Jim Edmonds, Chairman of the PHA
Commission. "Throughout this process, the Port Authority has
maintained its commitment to good environmental stewardship and open
communication with the citizens of the communities surrounding the
port. We are confident that the FEIS now paves the way for quick
approval of a permit that will allow the first phase of construction
. at Bayport to get underway soon."
The PHA is committed to meeting ISO 14001 standards upon the
completion and opening of the Bayport facility. The PHA last year
became the first u.s. port to achieve compliance with ISO 14001
5/19/2003
..
e
e
standards through its environmental management system (EMS) at the
Barbours Cut Terminal and the Central Maintenance Facility.
. The PHA's design for the Bayport facility includes several
.' mitigations f0r environmental impacts. For example, the use of clean
fuel and clean engine technology will help reduce air emissions. The
PHA also has committed to help fund several local transportation
projects in the Bayport area in an effort to increase the safety a~d
efficiency of the local transportation network while reducing
congestion and air pollution. A three-mile long buffer zone around the
facility will include a landscaped sight and sound berm that will be
20 feet tall. The buffer zone also includes part of an extensive
stormwater collection system that will protect Galveston Bay. Lighting
systems designed to use black light poles and specially designed
fixtures will limit night-time impacts. The PHA's Bayport plan also
involves jurisdictional wetland replacement at a ratio of more than
three to one to increase the habitats available for fish, waterfowl
and other coastal wildlife. Furthermore, the beneficial use of dredged
material will create an additional 200 acres of inter-tidal marsh.
"The Port Authority has drawn on expertise developed in other
ports around the world to make the proposed Bayport facility
environmentally sound," stated Chairman Edmonds. "We will continue to
review our development plans as new environmental technologies and
techniques evolve." . .
Edmonds added, "The Port Authority will continue to work to
address all public concerns and issues regarding the proposed
facility, setting a new standard in the maritime industry for
environmental stewardship and community friendliness. The Port
Authority wants.to be a good neighbor and will work as hard as we can
to meet that goal."
. u.S. Congressman Gene Green commented, "Having represented the
port area for many years in Austin and Washington, D.C., I know the
port makes continuous efforts to be a good neighbor. We have witnessed
it protect the environment with projects such as the widening and
deepening of the Houston Ship Channel. This FEIS shows that the
Bayport project will be planned and constructed with the same level of
environmental and civic commitment. I have been a long-time supporter
of the Port of Houston, and I readily support the Bayport'terminal."
U.S. Senator John Cornyn remarked, "The positive results outlined
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' FEIS on the Port Authority's
proposed Bayport project are welcome news. I'm confident that the
Bayport project will help create jobs and stimulate the economy not
only in Houston, but throughout the region."
Built out in p~ases over 15 to 20 years to meet market demand, the
Bayport complex will have enough space 'for seven ships and a 378-acre
container storage yard. It will have a maximum capacity of about 1.4
million containers -- a 200 percent increase over the Port Authority's
current container handling capacity. The facility is expected to
create approximately 39,000 jobs and contribute approximately $1.6
billion to the Texas economy through wages and tax revenues.
In anticipation of the FEIS and a construction permit, the PHA ha~
been advertising for and receiving RFQs and proposals over the past
several months in an effort to save time and money when construction
is authorized. The entire bidding and contracting process can take six
to eight months from the time bids are submitted, evaluated by staff,
reviewed by commissioners and then awarded. Following the granting of
a permit, the PHA estimates that as many as 16 contracts totaling more
. than $180 million will be awarded during the first part of the Bayport
project. More than half of that amount is expected to be Small
Business Development Program-eligible contracts, and can result in as
much as 35 percent participation by qualified small businesses.
5/19/2003
Page 20f9
II>
e
e
About The Port of Houston Authority
. The Port of Houston Authority owns and operates the public
! facilities located along the Port of Houston, the 2S-mile long complex
of diversified public and private facilities designed for handling
general cargo, containers, grain and other dry bulk materials, project
and heavy lift cargo, and other types of cargo. Each year, more than
6,600 vessels call at the port, which ranks first in the U.S. in
foreign waterborne tonnage, second in overall total tonnage, and sixth
largest in the world. The Port Authority plays a vital role in
ensuring navigational safety along the Houston Ship Channel, which has
been instrumental in Houston's development as a center of
international trade. The Barbours Cut Container Terminal and Central
Maintenance Facility are the first of any U.S. port facilities to
develop and implement an innovative Environmental Management System
that meets the rigorous standards of ISO 14001. Additionally, the port
is an approved delivery point for Coffee "C" futures contracts traded
on the New York Board of Trade's Coffee, Sugar & Cocoa Exchange. For
more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com
Position Paper
USACE'S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED
BAYPORT CONTAINER AND CRUISE TERMINAL
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared and
released on May 16, 2003 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
evaluates the Bayport Container & Cruise Terminal (Bayport project)
.proposed by the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) along with alternative
sites picked for review by the USACE. The FEIS takes into
consideration all of the public comments that were submitted following
the USACE's release of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)
in November 2001.
Comments on the FEIS are due by June 16, 2003. The USACE will
consider comments on the FEIS in the finalization of their Record of
Decision (ROD). The ROD is scheduled for July 28, 2003. The ROD will
decide on one of the following actions: 1) issue the permit, 2) issue
the permit with modifications or conditions, or 3) deny the permit. To.
fulfill its regulatory obligations under federal law, the FEIS
prepared by the USACE goes much further.
1. Air Quality Matters
Bayport will comply with the Houston area~s clean air plan. In
fact, all of the Bayport emissions were overestimated in the plan.
Onsite Bayport nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions estimated in the
FEIS are only 33.5% of the onsite Bayport emissions assumed
and included in the clean air plan.
.
Emissions from Bayport will be below the health-based National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Emissions from Bayport will be below the air quality standards
for diesel particulate established by the EPA and the State of
California.
5/19/2003
Page 3 of9
.
.
.
..
e
e
Any of the alternative sites would have air impacts that are equal
to or greater than Bayport.
Operational emissions from all of the alternative sites .would
have the same level of impacts for ozone, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), diesel
particulate and PMI0 (particles with a diameter of 10 rom or
less) .
During the construction phase, the alternative sites would be
likely to have PM2.5 (particles with a diameter' of 2.5 rom or
less) emissions that are greater than at Bayport, and that
could exceed the NAAQS.
The FEIS states that construction-related impacts at the other
alternatives "would, in general, be greater than those related
to the Bayport terminal location alternative since these
locations would require additional stabilization and/or
increase in elevation."
The Bayport facility will be more protective of public health and
the environment than the FEIS shows because the analysis used
overstated emissions.
The FEIS states, "Assumptions were generally made that would
result in an estimate of the worst case scenario that could
result from the terminal operation."
The study used very high estimates of emissions from
construction and operations, like trucks and cranes. The FEIS
states, "The emissions inventory presented for the terminal
development is intended to be an order of magnitude of
emissions greater than what would actually result from
terminal operations."
The analysis in the FEIS did not include significant
components of the PHA's air mitigation plan.
The study includes the first-ever model in Texas of the impact
of such a facility under the new PM 2.5 air quality standard,
as well as the impact of diesel particulate emissions.
The FEIS did not consider all of the benefits of several
upcoming environmental regulations that will improve air
quality in the region, includi~g the new diesel and fuel
standards announced by EPA, new Tier II and Tier III diesel
equipment, and other r.u1es relating to the Houston clean air
plan. The FEIS states, "This study did not fully account for
future regulations and technological advances that would
potentially reduce emissions from operations related to the
terminal project."
The FEIS states, "Therefore, actual, emissions related to the
project are likely to be lower than those presented in this
assessment."
The FEIS states, "Background levels of PM 2.5 should decrease
over time as this pollutant is further controlled. This
positive impact was not included in the analysis since it was
5/19/2003
Page 4 of9
...--
..--
.
.
e
e
not possible to determine the degree to which future
background levels might decrease."
The Port has also committed to controls that will reduce emissions
from Bayport, and further minimize the chance of any harm to
citizens living near the facility.
The Port has committed to reducing emissions of ozone-forming
chemicals well beyond what is required in the Houston clean
air plan.
The Port also has committed to reducing diesel emissions
through the use of clean fuels and clean engine technologies.
2. Wetlands and Water Quality Matters
The FEIS includes a detailed analysis of the wetlands and other
habitat at the Bayport site. The Corps has determined that there
are 19.71 acres of wetlands that are subject to federal
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA), of which 19.28 acres
will be impacted by the project. The large majority of those
wetlands are on old dredge material disposal areas north of Port
Road.
The PHA will mitigate for the loss of these wetlands on a 173.5
acre tract located on Red Bluff Road. The Port will create 66.8
acres of new wetlands, within the Taylor Bayou/Bayport Channel
watershed, a ratio of more than 3.4 acres of wetlands for each one
acre used to build the terminal.
The .PHA will compensate for other aquatic resources and habitat
values. In addition to the created wetlands, the Red Bluff Road
site will include:
enhancement of 12 acres of existing wetlands
23.7 acres of forested and shrub uplands
71 acres of restored coastal prairie
a conservation easement will protect the entire 173.5 acre
tract
At least 200 acres of inter-tidal marsh will be created as a
beneficial use of dredge material.
Critically, the water quality functions of the aquatic resources
(both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional) will be adequately
replaced.
The storm water quality plan at Bayport will meet -- and exceed --
all environmental standards.
This program is being implemented even though sampling of storm
water at the existing Barbours Cut Terminal has never exceeded any
regulatory limits. That record has been set without the high level
of protection Bayport will have.
The Bayport Terminal will capture the first inch of rainfall
at the terminal and divert it to a holding pond. The first
5/19/2003
Page 5 of9
...
e
e
flush pond will trap suspended solids, thus decreasing the
discharge of sediments into the bay.
.
The rate of storm water flow into Pine Gully will be limited
to pre-project conditions. The South Terminal Retention Pond
will capture and hold storm water in excess of one inch, and
then release it slowly. This retention pond will have a
created wetland in its bottom to filter the storm water before
its release.
The areas of the terminal with the highest chance to
contribute contaminants to storm water (the Maintenance
Facility, RTG maintenance areas, and equipment parking areas)
will have isolated drainage basins, which will have inlet
treatment units to remove TSS, oil and grease, with the
remaining water then proceeding to the first flush basins.
3. Alternative Sites
The USACE analysis of alternatives includes several sites that, in
the opinion of the PHA, are not practical or reasonable.
.
Cedar Point is located in Chambers County, not Harris County.
There -is no deep water access, so a new 40 foot deep channel
approximately 15,000 feet long would need to be constructed
from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Point. An additional
102 lane miles above that needed for the Bayport alternative
would be required. From both an operational and financial
standpoint, this alternative is neither reasonable nor
practical.
Spillman's Island cannot be used for a container terminal. The
site is a key component of the 50-year plan to dispose of
dredged material from the congressionally authorized Houston
Ship Channel project. Disposal of maintenance material is
essential to keeping the Houston Ship Channel open. A
replacement for Spillman's Island must be located and
permitted before Spillman's Island could be used. This
alternative disposal site would also produce environmental
impacts. Even if that hurdle is overcome, repeated analyses
have demonstrated that the costs of constructing a container
terminal on the active disposal site are much higher than
those for construction at Bayport.
Shoal Point in Texas City is not available to the PHA. A
permit has been granted to another applicant to use that
location. The construction of a Texas City terminal does not
lessen the need for Bayport, but it does eliminate the
location as a reasonable or practical alternative.
Bayport is a good location for the project. It is located in an
area designated for industrial uses along an existing federally
maintained deep water channel. It has synergistic operational
efficiencies with the existing Barbours Cut Terminal. It is in the
overall public interest.
.
4. Noise Matters
It is important to recognize that the noise modeling in the FEIS
is extremely conservative. Indeed, according to the FEIS, it was
5/19/2003
Page6of9
.
.
-.
.
e
e
"designed to evaluate a worst-case condition."
For example, the source sound level used for operations at the
container terminal was the worst case hourly level among all
measurements taken by the USACE at the existing Barbours Cut
Terminal.
Additionally, the model assumes full build-out with all seven
berths operating during a 24-hour period. This scenario, which
cannot possibly occur for many years, will never occur for
more than a small fraction of the time the terminal operates.
Consistent with its policy to be a good neighbor, the PHA will
continue to work with surrounding areas to ensure
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The FEIS concludes that only short-term, less than significant
noise impacts would occur as a result of construction activities
at Bayport.
The FEIS demonstrates that no significant noise impacts would
occur from vehicular traffic at Bayport or from traffic coming to
or from the proposed location.
Bayport will not violate any noise regulations.
If-the Bayport Terminal was not built, similar noise levels would
likely occur at the site anyway due to future industrial growth.
According to theFEIS, "Under the No Action Alternative, increases
in industrial development are projected at several of the terminal
l~cation alternatives, including the Bayport area. It is expected
that ambient noise levels in the Bayport area and at the Cedar
Point and Pelican Island locations would increase commensurate
with this projected industrial growth."
The PHA is committed to building a 20-foot-high barrier to reduce
noise from both construction and operation of the Bayport
Terminal.
According to the FEIS, "(t)here are no ground-borne vibration
impacts as a result of construction, vehicular traffic, rail, or
terminal operations under the Bayport terminal location "
Despite the fact that the modeling over-predicted noise impacts,
the PHA has committed to the following mitigation measures to
further protect the area:
Construction
Construction equipment that has the lowest possible noise
emissions and acoustic height necessary to perform the job
will be selected if feasible.
All equipment will be in good repair and fitted with
"manufacturer recommended" mufflers.
All equipment maintenance and lay-down areas will be
located as far from the development area as possible.
The PHA will use tangent pier construction techniques for
5/19/2003
Page 7 of9
.
e
e
.
the container wharf instead of sheet pile wharf
construction to eliminate noise associated with pile drive
equipment.
The Port will use drilled shafts instead of pile driven
supports to reduce noise.
Operation
All terminal equipment will be properly maintained to
reduce noise.
All crane spreaders will be fitted with an impact control
device which will reduce impact noise by approximately
35%.
5. Surface Transportation Matters (Motor Vehicles and Railroad)
Most of the roadways identified as requiring improvements will
need to be improved in the future, regardless of whether or
not the PHA builds the Bayport facility. These required
improvements are addressed in the no-action alternative.
The need for roadway improvements in most of the study area
would be triggered by the projected increases in "background
traffic" (trips not associated with facility). This does not
include the widening of Port Road from two lanes to four
lanes, or ramp improvements (flyovers) between State Highway
146 and Port Road.
.
The need for improvements along SH 146 would be accelerated as
a result of the Bayport project. A comparison of the required
improvements at full build-out in the year 2025 indicates that
one additional freeway larye would be needed in each direction
on SH 146. The comparison also indicates that the Bayport site
would require the least amount of lane mile construction
compared to the alternatives.
Table 3.5-53
Comparative Total of Lane Miles Required Per Alternative
Year
Alternative 2005 2015 2025
----------- ----
Bayport 2 16 82
Pelican Island 1 40 99
Spillmans Island 9 16 100
Shoal Point/Bayport 1 21 105
Upper San Jacinto Bay/Bayport. 4 22 111
Shoal Point 1 15 127
Cumulative Scenario 17 30 166
Cedar Point 9 62 184
No Action Alternative 132 186 229
...
The PHA's main function is to provide, operate, and maintain
waterways and marine facilities for cargo and passenger ships.
The PHA does not build roads outside of its facilities
(responsibility of cities, county, or state). The PHA,
5/19/2003
Page 8 of9
.
.
.
.
e
e
however, has made a commitment to fund a portion of the
intersection and rail crossing improvements in the local area
to help accelerate their construction and thereby minimize
traffic congestion.
At full build-out in the year 2025, approximately 5,620 trucks
will make more than 11,000 trips per day (transit into and
transit out of the complex equal one trip). Bayport trucks
will represent approximately 8% of the projected traffic on SH
146 at Port Road in 2025.
Rail service to the facility would not begin until
approximately 2012. Until that time, rail cargo would be
trucked to the nearby Barbours Cut inter-modal facility.
Initiation of rail service will significantly decrease the
volume of truck traffic associated with the development.
--30--
CONTACT: The Port of Houston Authority, Houston
Felicia Griffin, 713/670-2644
Cell: 713/594-5620
fgriffin@poha.com
or
Argentina M. James, 713/670-2568
Cell: 713/306-6822
ajames@poha.com
5/19/2003
Page 9 of9
" .
I>
e
e
,.
COASTAL UPDATE - THE BAYPORT FEIS
By Jim Blackburn
May 17,2003
I am writing another of my occasional papers about a topic of coastal concern.
This time I am focused on the Port of Houston Authority's proposed BaYP0l1 container
port. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on this project was released
May 16,2003, and there are some amazing findings and information reveale~ in this
document. Most of this information is being made public for the first time, and the Corps
is only giving us 30 days to respond. There is a chance that one of the worst projects in
the past 30 years on the Upper Coast could be permitted if we do not, as a coastal
community, stand up and stop it. The purpose of this update is to provide you with some
information and to ask you to do something about this bad project that should not be
allowed to happen.
1. Background
'.
The Port of Houston Authority is proposing to construct the Bayport container
port on approximately 1100 acres ofland in Southeastern Harris County. The site is
located between Seabrook and Shoreacres/LaPorte and is bounded on the south by Pine
Gully, on the east by Galveston Bay and the EI Jardin subdivision of Pasadena and on the
north by the Bayport deepwater channel. The permit application was first filed in 1998.
The application proposes the construction of seven container ship berths and three
cruise ship berths, associated docks and storage. and a rail yard. There will be
approximately 5000 trucks in and 5000 trucks out each day as well as 8-8000 foot long
trains each day. The docks at Bayport are being provided with a depth of 56 feet even
though the Houston Ship Channel is only authorized to 45 feet of depth. The cost of the
proposed Bayport facility is $1.2 billion, provided by taxpayers:
There has been a long and continuing fight regarding this facility. Since 1998, the
Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association (GBCP A), as well as other
environmental groups, have been fighting this facility. A scoping meeting was conducted
on environmental studies back in 1999 that was attended by 2,500 people and over 6,000
people came to the hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that
. was conducted in December, 2001, at the George R. Brown Convention Center in
downtown Houston. On May 16,2003, the FEIS was released, and rather than resolving
issues about this site, the FEIS has only raised more serious questions about this project.
.
It is important to note that another container port recently has been permitted on
the Galveston Bay system. On April 15, 2003, Col. 'Waterworth of the Galveston District
signed the Record of Decision that approved the issuance of the permit to construct the
Shoal Point container facility at Texas City. The Shoal Point facility is located on a spoil
disposal island located behind the Texas City industrial complex in Galveston Bay. The
Shoal Point facility will actually move more containers, as measured in TEU's, than will
the proposed Bayport facility. In the Record of Decision, Col. Waterworth determined
I
..
e
e
I.
that the Shoal Point site was the environmentally least damaging practicable alternative
site in the Galveston Bay system. Bayport was evaluated as an alternative to Shoal Point.
At this time, the best site for a container port in the Galveston Bay system - Shoal.
Point - has been issued a pennit. The movement of containers into and out of the
Houston region is secure. The question before us now is - should a permit be issued for
Bayport, in addition to the permit already issued for Shoal Point? The FEIS for the
Bayport facility, and additional documents regarding the wetlands at that site, strongly
argue NO.
2. 56 Foot Deep HouSton Ship Channel
GBCP A and other groups have been concerned since the inception of this project
about whether or not the Houston Ship Channel would need to be deepened in order to
accommodate the larger container ships that are in use today in maritime commerce.
These larger vessels.are called post-Panamax ve.ssels and require a channel d.epth of from
45 to 53 feet. .
.
The permit application submitted by the Port of Houston Authority has always
shown the area adjacent to the docks being dredged to 56 feet. GBCP A and others have
argued that the Port is clearly planning to bring deeper draft vessels into Bayport than can
be accommodated by the current Houston and Bayport Ship Channels. The Bayport
channel is currently at 40 feet of depth and the Houston Ship Channel is now being
dredged to 45 feet. The third revised permit application, issued in conjunction with the
FEIS, now shows diagrams of cranes that are labeled as being designed to unload post-
Panamax vessels. Additionally, the FEIS mentions post-Panamaxvessels in several
places.
In order for post-Panamax vessels to come to Bayport, the Bayport channel must
be dredged deeper than 40 feet, and the Houston Ship Channel also must be deepened,
most likely to 56 feet. That is ten feet deeper than the current authorization. A deeper
channel will allow much more salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to enter the Galveston
Bay system. Salinity is the greatest threat to the ecological health and integrity of the
Galveston Bay system. Today, more and more freshwater is taken from our rivers for
water supply, reducing the amount that comes to our bays. The Galveston Bay system is
productive because it is an estuary, an area where salt and fresh water come together.
Salinity is the enemy of the oysterreefs. Salinity is the enemy of the juvenile fish and
shellfish that come to the Galveston Bay nursery.
..
The reason that Shoal Point in Texas City is an excellent location for a container
facility is that a deeper channel in the lower portion of the bay will not cause much
addit~onal harm. Shoal Point is near Bolivar Roads, the pass connecting Galveston Bay
with the Gulf of Mexico. Salinity is naturally higher in the lower portions of the bay.
Bayport is in the upper bay system. If we invest $1.2 billion in Bayport, we will
immediately hear cries from the Port of Houston Authority that we need a deeper ship
channel in order to be competitive - to protect our $1.2 billion investment.
2
..
e
e
.. Galveston Bay has survived some serious impacts. It made it through the
pollution of the 1960s. Yet, it may not make it past the salinity impacts associated with a
deeper channel and the continued removal of freshwater inflow from our ri vers that flow .
into the bay. We are not blind. We can see these things. The question is - are we going
to do anything about them?
3. Air Quality
The FEIS reported the results of the Corps' analysis ofPM2.5 (fine particle) air
pollution impacts from the proposed Bayport container facility. The OEIS did not
evaluate PM2.5 and until May 16, there had been no official position regarding this
important air pollutant. In the Executive Summary, the Corps states that in the year 20 I 0,
their modeling indicates that the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard set by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for PM 2.5 will be vi<?lated. PM 2.5 is
particulate matter 2.5 microns in size and smaller. These are very small particles that go
very deep into your lungs. The literature is full of recent articles linking PM2.5 to
mortality as well as to sickness and hospital admissions. It can kill you.
,.
PM 2.5 is one of the most dangerous air pollutants identified to date. The City of
Houston conducted a study of air quality in Houston called the "Sonoma Report". In this
report, PM 2.5 was identified as causing about $3 billion per year in negative health
effects. Rather than correcting this problem, the Bayport project will worsen this
problem. Why are we considering building a new port facility that will violate air
pollution standards, make us sick and possibly kill us?
The Houston area has been stating that it is concerned about quality of life issues.
Air pollution is a critical quality of life issue. If you cannot safely breathe the air at your
home, what quality do you have? Over 5000 people live within a mile of this facility.
Well over 50,000 live within three miles of the Bayport facility. Ifwe do not take care of
the people who live here, why should more people corne to live in our region?
4. Wetlands
The proposed Bayport site is full of wetlands. According to the FEIS, there are
over 146 acres of wetlands that will be filled on this site. Only 66 acres of wetlands are
proposed to be constructed to mitigate for this loss. There will be a net loss of over 80
acres according to the FEIS. Dr. John Jacob, the wetland analyst hired by GBCP A, is of
the opinion that the actual acreage of wetland on the site could be at least twice that
found by the Corps.
...
The Corps' analysis alone shows a startling impact on the aquatic environment.
However, the true importance of the wetlands at the Bayport site is shown in comments
from our resource agencies. For example, on April 25, 2002 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service stated "The Service believes that the wetland complex involved [at the Bayport
..,
.)
..
e
e
.
site] is of national significance." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also recommended
denial of the permit for Bayport.
Wetlands are important for water quality in Galveston Bay. Wetlands are
important as habitat for fish and wildlife. Wetlands are a vital part of the coastal ecology.
Wetlands should not be taken for a port facility if they don't have to be taken. We don't
have a lot of wetlands left along the west shoreline of Galveston Bay. Every acre is
important. Why are we building Bayport at this location? Why are we allowing these
wetlands to be destroyed? This FEIS is raising important issues that we should debate as
a community.
.
There is also a very confusing statement contained in a fact sheet that
accompanied the Bayport FEIS. The Corps identified several commonly asked questions
and provided answers. Question 8 asked whether or not the Port of Houston Authority
had offered compensatory mitigation in the Katy Prairie or in the Banana Bend area of
the San Jacinto River. In its answer, the Corps stated that "the applicant (the Port of
Houston Authority) has been engaged in ongoing discussions with state and federal
resource agencies concerning Banana Bend and Katy Prairie sites, but no final decisions
have been reached in the discussions." From this statement, it is clear that the wetland
mitigation is still being negotiated. Apart from questions as to why mitigation would be
appropriate in the Katy Prairie, the larger issue is why was an FEIS issued before this
important mitigation concept had been resolved? This is not a Final EIS. The final
proposal has not been developed. This FEIS should be shelved until we, the impacted
public, can see a final proposal.
5. Noise Impacts
The FElS also analyzes the impact of the proposed Bayport facility on noise
levels in adjacent neighborhoods and the results are startling. For the first time, the
Corps admits that there will be major impacts on adjacent neighborhoods from noise
from Bayport. The FEIS admits that sound le~els may increase in EI Jardin by over 5
dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and in other areas by over 10 dBA during that same time. In
the FElS, it states that EP A considers sound levels greater than 10 dBA over background
as being startling or sleep disturbing. The City of Pasadena municipal code, which
applies to El Jardin, prohibits an instantaneous sound level greater than 5 dBA from 10
p.m. to 7 a.m.
.
The FEIS states that the sound levels can be dropped to an acceptable level by
two things. First, if the port is not operating between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m, the levels would
be acceptable. However, that is not the plan and it' doesn't make sense. The port should
be located at a place where it could operate 24 hours. It cannot at this location. Second,
to protect the areas such as LaPorte and Shoreacres, the Corps states that building the
proposed sound wall on the north side of the ship channel to 30 feet rather than 20 feet
would help. Can you image what would happen to a 30 foot high sound wall during a
hurricane, much less what an eyesore it would be? And that still does not solve the
problem of the sound levels in the City of Pasadena.
4
:.
-.
...
.
e
e
The FEIS concludes that residential property values will decline due to noise
impacts. A 1998 study is cited that identifies a decline ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 % in
property value for each dBA of increased noise. Given that some areas are projected to
see increases in noise levels of 10 dBA or more, it would be reasonable to expect
propeliy value decreases of from 2 to .15% due to. noise impacts alone. This information
has never before been made public and it is important.
6. The Cruise and Container Terminal
Another huge change between the Draft and Final EIS is the treatment of the
container and cruise terminals. From the beginning, the Port of Houston Authority has
proposed both a cruise and a container terminal at Bayport and insisted that they both be
located at the same site (e.g., co-located). In the DEIS, alternative sites were evaluated to
determine if they had sufficient room to accommodate both the container and cruise
facilities. There is no reason that container and cruise facilities need to be co-located. In
fact, the opposite conclusion is more realistic. Nonetheless, the DEIS evaluated
alternative sites based on both container and cruise terminals being co-located.
In the FEIS, the Corps has now admitted that the cruise and container facilities do not
have to be co-located - that they are not dependant upon each other. However, the Corps
did not redo the analysis of alternatives in the FEIS to fully explore the implications of
this admission. Now, the cruise terminal could be in Galveston and the container
terminal at Spillman's Island, eliminating the major dredging impacts associated with
placing cruise facilities at Spillman's Island. The point here is that the analysis of
alternatives in the FEIS is wrong and has to be redone.
We are finally beginning to get to the truth here. There was never any reason why
container and cruise facilities should be co-located, except that only one. site was large
.enough and that was Bayport. The Port of Houston Authority set the analysis up so that
only one site could be selected. That false premise has now been.set aside.
7. The Future of Existing Hay Residential Development
Since the early 1900s; residential development has been an important part of the
Galveston Bay .community. Seabrook,.EI Jardi~, Shoreacres and LaPorte all pre-date the
Bayport complex. When Friendswood Development first announced the Bayport
complex, they were careful to state that the existing residential areas would not be
. threatened by the industrial development, that the deepwater channel would only be used
to service the industry located west of Highway 146.. That promise has evaporated.
Today, as was revealed in the FEIS for Bayport, the residential community of the upper
west side of Galveston Bay is threatened by noise, by air pollution and by traffic.
. The fight over Bayport, in part, is a fight over the future of residential
development along the upper west side of Galveston Bay. I believe that our best chance
of protecting Galveston Bay in the long term is to have a strong residential development
5
..
:.:;.
.
..
e
e
pattern along the bay. People who. live by the bay love the bay. They will fight for the
bay. They want it clean because they use it. If we allow the residential development to
be forced out by the Port of Houston, we will lose one of our greatest quality of life
resources and more importantly, we will lose a base of detemlined people who will fight
for the bay.
8. Conclusion
The fight over Bayport is a fight over the integrity of the Galveston Bay system
and the people who live next to the bay. It is about salinity. It is about wetlands. It is
about air quality. It is about noise impacts. It is about quality of life in the Houston
region - a region that sorely needs quality places. It is about needless destruction.
Shoal Point is already permitted. It is about to be constructed. Shoal Point will
provide for the economic growth for the region. Shoal Point will provide the jobs and the
economic development.
Throughout our fight against Bayport, we have maintained that we are not against
container ports or jobs. We are against a poorly thought-out proposal by the Port of
Houston Authority. Now, for the first time, we, the people who love Galveston Bay, are
getting a glimpse at the truth about the proposed Bayport container port. The FEIS, while.
not a perfect document by any means, reveals significant problems with the proposed
Bayport project. The truth, however late in coming, is always welcome.
Those who love Galveston Bay need to act and act swiftly to keep this bad project
from becoming a reality. The first important issue is - we have to get the word out about
this project. We need a public hearing to be conducted by the Corps where they present
this new information to us and to our elected officials. We at GBCP A and other groups
have been saying for five years that there are major problems with this project. Now, the
U.S. government has agree~ with us, at least in part. That word needs to get out. I would
ask each of you to write Col. Waterworth of the Corps and ask him to hold a public
hearing where we can hear the truth about this project. Please contact your state and
federal representatives and senators and ask them to ask Col. Waterworth to hold a public
hearing. I cannot overemphasize the importance of such a hearing.
I would also ask you to request that the time to comment on the FEIS be extended
from 30 days to 120 days. We are planning to retain consultants to review the Corps'
analysis. We believe their numbers to be low with regard to air quality. However, we
need more than 30 days to get this work done.
Also, if you want a hard copy of this FEIS, it will cost you $874. That is
outrageous. You can view the FEIS on the Corps web site at www.swg.usace.armv.mil.
You can get a free executive summary and CD of the entire FEIS by contacting Ms. Lori
Magyar at URS Corporation, 713-914-6480. Co!. Waterworth's address is Col. Leonard
D. Waterworth, District Commander, Galveston District, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers,
P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, Texas 77553-1229.
6
.
...
.
..
e
e
I suggest that each of you contact key governmental officials. In addition to your
state and federal representatives and senators, you might consider contacting the Harris
County Commissioners if you live in Harris County. The Harris County Commissioners
are: County Judge Robert Eckels, Precinct 2 Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, Precinct 3
Commissioner Steve Radack, Precinct 1 Commissioner EI Franco Lee and Precinct 4
Commissioner Jerry Eversole. Their mailing address is 100 I Preston, 9th Floor, Houston,
Texas 77002.
If you want to contact the Commissioners of the Port of Houston Authority and
tell them what you think of their proposed Bayport container p011 plan, the
commissioners are: James T. Edmonds, Chairman, Kase L. Lawal, Vice Chairman, Steve
Phelps, James W. Fonteno, Jr., Jimmy A. Burke, Cheryl Thompson-Draper and Janice
Longoria. Their address is Port of Houston Authority, P.O. Box 2562, Houston, Texas
77252-2562.
You might also quiz the candidates for the Mayor of Houston as well as council.
candidates regarding their position on Bayport a~ well.
In concluding, let me thank you for taking the time to read this. Bayport is the
wrong idea at the wrong place. But in order to defeat this mistake, all of us fighting
Bayport n~ed your help. Please take the time to do something about Bayport. Galveston
Bay needs your help now more than it ever has. This is happening on your watch and
mine. Let's stop it.
7
'"
e
I..,.,..,......,
l).r. '. """"'~' ..
. r' <. < :'11'\\2.h
V ....;..,.".~
[ /........\.,
. ..' - .,'. .~,
;b.< .../;~ re SUD
f. ." ~'i.. '11
~"X:?: }:;;:,;~1~~'1
~';.'.'!;;;S::iJ.~J:.:l' S. 1947'
fe'hrea lnce .
{ 18, 2003
6 Pages - 50 Cents
~.: i':'.'i'I;;~' "';'~';,;:~:
';T. 0.,7...,;....
~~.: '..:'
~;;~I ..:;~!?;:t:~:
'li"'" "0 i: ..
:;,<e/: ;'.<:?
...,. ";2"'"
~~~~[c~~
tile.' ,."N,
'::ej'::I'?;:
~ }/; ;; ,,~:~t'.~
'~a:'l's,..i,..;;.'.. .
. " .. ","",'i.
~~,~
Opinions Are Mixed On
Bayport 'Impact' Study
.
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, chargeu with the deci-
sion as to whether the Port of
Houston Authority will get a permit
to build a container terminal at the
Bayport Channel just south of La
Porte and Shoreacres, issued this
past week the long-awaited final
Environmental Impact Study on the
project, and that study drew far
different reaction from the parties
involved.
liThe Corps has done an outstand-
ing job in its diligent review of the
proposed Bayport plan," said Jim
Edmonds, chairman of the Port
Commission. "Throughout this
process, the Port Authority has
maintained its commitment to good
environmental stewardship and
open communication with the
citizens of the communities sur-
rounding the port. We are confident
that the FEIS now paves the way for
quick approval of a permit that will
allow the first phase of construction
i at Bayport to get underway soon."
On the other hand, Jim Blackburn,
chairman of the Galveston Bay
Conservation and Preservation
Association, said, "This is not the
end. This is where we are supposed
to get to see the truth. We get only
30 days to respond, even though the
Port and the Corps have taken fully
four years to prepare this massive
document."
GBCPA has formally requested a
90-day extension of the comment
neri0d. to a tot a! of 120 davs. The
.
deadline now in place by the Corps
is 30 days -- June 16.
"The Port Authority has drawn 011
expertise developed in other ports
around the world to make the pro-
posed Bayport facility environmen-
tally sound," Edmonds said. "We
will continue to review our develop-
ment plans as new environmental
technologies and techniques evolve.
The Port Authority will continue to
work to address all public concerns
and issues regarding the proposed
facility, setting a new standard in the
maritime industry for environmental
stewardship and community friend-
linesS. The Port Authority wants to
be a good neighbor and will work as
hard as we can to meet that goal."
Blackburn, however, criticized the
$800-apiece cost securing a copy of
the final EIS.
"This is supposed to be a public
document prepared by a govern-
ment agency for citizen review,"
Blackburn said. "How can some-
thing costing that much money be
called public? It is far beyond the
reach of nearly everyone."
Blackburn also reiterated the
GBCPA pledge to seek legal action
to intercede should the Corps grant
the Port Authority the permit to
proceed with Bayport construction.
More comments from Blackburn
and the GBCPA can be found on
Page 2 of today's Bayshore Sun.
Information from the Port Authority
was received just before deadline
Friday, and will be reviewed in
more detail in our Wednesday, May
21 edition.
',~~bliC :co;"ments on t1.ze, u..s.A.~y. Cqrps of Engineers
fiii{rIEnvironmentallmpq,ctStclte1jJetit regarding the pro-
,piJiedjJayportcontaillertennit,aJizte aueby June 16, 2003
.;-.;uhl,ess theCorPsgran4'the. reg';est~y.thlJ Galveston'Bay
'Conie.rvation and, PresetY.atiiJn, AssoCiation that' the
com'",entperiodbe extertde4~q 1,/-0 tkzys~ .,... .
,,:'Th'e Corps willconsider.i:omments on' the FEIS in the
:1i#a,lizaiioni' ,of, its RecoriJ~f,,!J.~cfiio,n~'(RqD), which is
s,cheduled for July28,~OOj.:. The ~ llliD is expected to
,'autluJrize one a/three a~t(oils' r"e1at~dto a construction per-
};i'itlor Bayport: " ... '... .~. ',: ., " "
> ,'. .' .".. . - '\.;,..
lYiSsuance of the permit,.2J issifance of the penn it with
,modifications aT' ctmditio.ns, ,'or' j Xdl!1llal of the permit.
~ "".............:w LI....... IU SSKJ#,\ I
e
e
REPL Y TO
ATTENTION OF.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVESTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1229
GALVESTON. TEXAS 771193-1229
May 5, 2003
Executive Office
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have enclosed a copy(s) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FJ;.IS) for the
Port of Houston Authority's proposed Bayport Ship Channel Container/Cruise Terminal.
This final report, prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, Section 102 (2)(c) and regulations of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) is hereby
submitted for public review/comments.
Comments on the PElS must be postmarked by June 16,2003. Please provide
comments to Mr. Fred Anthamatten at the letterhead address.
.
Leonard D. Waterworth
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosure
.