HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2003 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Meeting
I
I
I
I
I
I
S350.ooo
$300.000
J
I
I
e
e
.'
R50,OlIO
.
J
1
~
$ZOO.OCI)
~
I
(,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Job No: U:n.o3.341
Dare: MAY, 2003
,1SO,ClQO
S'OO.oGl)
ROO
I
........835 PIl'- t ~or Surcmarga.S fr wick
---835 DS'- \ 'Jr.6 5utcMrge-7 ft wick
ow.. 83S psr- 2 yeet Surcharge-5 ft wick
->> 835 pllf. 2 year Surcharge-7 ft wick
........'000 pst. 1 yeal SUlCharge-6 ft wicIl
-""-1000 ps'. 1 yeaf Su~hGrgG-7 ft wit;lc.
-.. 1000 pst'- 2 ye_ Surcharge--! ft wick
.. .. 1000 psf.2 year ~ul'Ch8rge-7 ft wid(
S3.~
".00
$4.so 15.00 15.50 IIJIlI
fill Co. p.r Cub": .,....
.18.50 17.00 Sl' 50 18.00
$&ME
Cost SWDDIal)' by Unit Fill Cos\
Spilmatu IsWd
Holl$lOa. Texas
S&ME Spillman Report.max
5
e
e,
. -IT .. ""\I ~.
or"
,.' .
." .
S.O DISCUSSION OF USlJL TS
Based OD lhese preliminary analyses and assumptions. our conclusions are as fOllows:
. TIle site can be effectively prc><>>nsolidated by the conventional approach of surcharging
with an emMnll'ment of fill. in coniuncI;ion with wick drains to accelerate the
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
-
consolidation process. For the sw-charBe times considered (1 to 2 years). no other
WOund re"leli;Ation technique is anticipated to be more economical.
A3 ~hown in Table 2 and illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, tho costs oftbe vvious scenarios
dlat have bc:cn coIISidered nnge nom $149.000 per ecre to $242.000 per acre. The costS
ere higher for shona SUlQlusrgo times and wgCl' dcaign loadings and lower for the
convene. Although Dot evaluated in this lIudy, the same pattern will bold for the
allowable poSl-wllSlrUClion xtLlcmC:Il1 t.olQ'~c; a IDO~ stringent value: (i.c., < (; inc:h<::s)
will increase costs while a more liberal value (i.e., > 6 inches) will decrease costS.
. As shown in Figure 5, tho estimated costs are bigbly dependent on the assumed cost of
fUL A value of 55.S0/c.y. has been used iIllhis study, which is likely a conservative
wluc. A review of the average bid price fOr dcusity controlled embankment fill on
Ten..c Department ofTJ'RtI9~tU1ion. projects in the HoUlton uea indicates that unit costs
for large quantities of fill (i.c., > 200,000 cubic yards) have generaUy ranged up to
$5.00Jc.y. with the most common value appaceally near S3.00/c.y.. S~e the fill is such
an important factor in the stabiliDtion costs, aad since the stabilization will involve such
. large quantity of fill that will be needed at an unkno~ date, we intentionally cho$(; a
unit cost tQwards the high end of the given nmge or valUes. Additionally, as noted
pteviowrly. we have not ~ 0 salvago waluc to ~ 5urchBrp tIll cor have we
usumed lbat the development oftbe contaiDer yard would oec:ur ~ stages (ie., fill will
DOt be.able to be re-used 00. aito).
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
J
r
r
.
Although our assumptions regardiag fill costs are probabJy conservative, tho
188umptions regarding the soil properties and parameters that were used in our
~~t analyses mayor bY DO' be ClODSerYative.. There is relatively Jinle da.la
4
Based. OIl "nclrmaJ" oquipmGll and labor CCI5U for e:anh"Uk . .
WU'eahlltitaUy law for Spilman, 1.lomd, unl..... borrow . ~oa. we beheve that this fiaure is
soun;e .1 va)' dose 10 Ihe sicc. ' .
20
"'----
. - ----
S~ ~d
~_.
----
---.~.
NOSNDWa3/A3~i~g
t6tJ t~~8 t8~
ea:Et t~e~/B~/5e
S&ME Spillman Report.max
r
(
I
I
I
I
r
I
1
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
t
r
I
e
e
available from the very luse site and it is possible that the average conditions may be
better or worse than the assumed model profile. Oo1y additional ~Ioration and testing
can reduce this uncertainty.
. Overall} the subsur5lce Q)nditions across Spilinans {sland appear to be in line with or
slightly better than conditions we have encoUIllered al other major wntainCI tl:rmilllll
sites of similar history (i.e., old dredge disposal areas) in the Charleston. South CaroJins.
aod Savannah. Georgia areas. For the. same post-construetion performance crileria. our
IDalyses indicate that site preparation costs for a Spitmans Island container tenninBl
should be I~ than those we have calculated for these other major new terminal sites,
particularly if a lower fill rate can be reasonably justified.
. The Bayport. SitelSpihnans Island cost comparison performed by LAN used a value of
$258,750 per acre for surcharging OD Spilmans Island. Our analyses indicate that
depending on the desired level of performance (i.e., loading and post-construction
settlemcnt tolerance) and permissible constmctfon lime (Le.. surcharge period), site
stabUi%ation casls may be much lower. This is panicularly true as the CO~ of flU is
lowered. It should be aoted that the $258,7S0/acre filute from the LAN tepOn includes
a 15% increase over \he geotechnical engine:et's (HVJ's) estimate ofS22S,OOO/acre. We
underst&od that the increase was intended to represent the additional eneineering.related
costs associated witb designing and impJemeating Ihc surtbarge program. Our costs
already inc1udo aUowances !or the necessary tub and no additioaal multiplier is
necessary. (We have not im:Juded any costs for a 8~~cal exploration since such
work wo\lld be required on any potential teraUnal site): .-;
5.1 OTHER COST ISSUES
As noted before. our evaluation bas been lirnncd 10 the stabilization of the site, which is the
primary scorcchnica1 related cost associated with site developxnenL However. other issues will
also have to be addressed. 111 particular. depending on the configuration of the terminal and
consuuction schedulcs, .-ability ooocems along the perimeter of the island may lead to extra.
costs (e.g.. ground reinforcement. suged construction. containment bu. ~.). Similarly. we
21
S&ME Spillman Report.max
)
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
r
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
e
e
.'
have not addressed the many other cost items that have beeR reported as being unique. to the
Spilmans (Sland site. We are not qualified to address many ofthe major line items (e.g., pipeline
relocations, acqui5ition of B new dredge disposal site, J)arking garage costs, etc.) but we can
make o.oc comment with regard to foundation costs.
The costs of wharf piling have been estimated to be $21 million higher for the Spilman, Island
site.. We understand that this figure is based on the assumption tbat the drilled piers tbst wjIJ
make up the tangent pier wan at the from of the Spilmans Island wharf will have to be 40 ft
longer. This may ceItainly tic: troe.. however, we suspect that for conditions such as those at
SpilmaDs Island, there may be more cc:onomical alternatives lbaa a tangent pier wall wharf
sttucture (e.g., an open wharfwith a coDlainment bund).
; r~
22
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
I
I
,
I
,
APPENDIX
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
.:~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
r
t
I
I
e
e
Spilmans Island
5-ft Wick Spacing, 1-year SurchargG. 835 psf Container Loading
Surcharge Elevation: +29.8 It ML T
o
20
- 40
.~
-
-
c
~
CD
'i!
CIJ 60
fh
80
100
10
,
I
ObNo: 1131-03.341
. MAV. 2003
60
legend
V Settlement
t Fill Elevation
50
~
40 ~
..!.
-
-
c
o
~
~
30 uJ
-
IT:
20
.:. ~,r
100
1000
10
10000
Time (days)
.ca.-.:
" ~emeDl. Fill Cwvc example
SpilDllUllIlsland
Fisute No:
. .
S&ME Spillman Report,max
i
i
e
e
.~
... -- -----. -....-_..-." . -'
Surcharge Elevation: +28.7 ML T
o
so
20 legend 50
V Settlement
.... Fill Elellation
~
- 40 40 ~
.C;;
- I
-
- -
c -
CI) c:
E .2
Q) j
=
Q) lD
tJ) 60 30 w
u:
80
100
10
ob No: 1131.03.341
. MAY. 2.003
tT1'Co1lo5Ol Gnlph
20
100
Time (days)
saME
S&ME Spillman Report.max
10
10000
1000
Settlemem . fiJI Curve Example
SpilIIWIS Island
HOIdImI, Texas
Figure No:
A1
I
I
e
e
.'
Spilmans Island
7.ft Wick Spacing, 1..year Surcharge, 835 psf Container Loadin
Surcharge Elevation: +33.5 ML T
20 legend 50
7 Settlement
.. Fill Elevation
- ~
c: 40 40 ~
:.::. .
~ .....
-
-
E 6
CD :::l
f3 aJ
>
4) 60 CD
en 30 m
u:
o
80
100.
10
I
!
I
60
.: So;:
20
100
1000
10
10000
Time (days)
Figure No:
Sea.IemenI- FU1 ~ Example
SpDmaDs l&laDd
HCRUtoD, TClClIs
$&ME
A3
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
Spilmans Island
7.ft Wick Spacing, 2-year Surcharge. 835 psf Container LOading
Surcharge Elevation: +29.8 ft Ml T
o
GO
20 Legend 50
V Settlement
.. Fill Elevation
~
..- 40 40 ~
c::
:;. .
.,;- -
c !t:-
IP C
E .2
G) ....
%! ca
>
G) 60 C1)
en 30 rn
-
LL
80
20
foo
10
100
1000
10
10000
Time (days)
I
SIME
Smle&nelll- rill C1It1Ie EJCamp1e
SpUmaas Islalld
HOUSIGD. Texas
Figure No:
A4
I
S&ME Spillman Report.max
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
~
I
t
I
I
I
:
I
i
I
I
.
I
~
l
e
e
.'
Spilmans Island
5-ft Wick Spacing, i-year Surcharge, 1000 psf Container Loading
Surcharge Elevation: +32.3 ft ML T
o
20
:? 40
-
'E
Q)
E
CD
::
~ 60
80
100
10
t
Jnh No: 1131.03.341
...~. u.. V ?nO'll
60
50
Legend
v SetUemenl
.... Fill Elevation
~
40 ~
...!.
-
-
c::
o
;::
tV
,.
Q)
30 jjj
LL
20
. .
100
1000
10
10000
Time (days)
Scnlcm=t . Fill Curve bample
J::~Im2n.. I..IAnl4
ca.-
I"ipae No:
S&ME Spillman Report.max
I
I
"
,
I
I
J
I
~
I
~
I
,
I
I
I
I
~
~
I
.
I
e
e
-~
o
20
80
100
"10
~..n WICK t:)paclng, ~-yet:lr .-;:IUI 'Wllal YVJ . uuv ....-. __.._no_ 0
Surcharge Elevation: +30.8 ft ML T
60
50
~
40 ~
.
-
l!:;..
c
.2
'ii
>
CD
30 ijj
OS/21/2821 e0:57 2918421491
-- ~___I
I I
1
- 40
.5
-
~
CD
E
.!
;:
m 60
(Jj
u:
20
100
1000
'0
10000
Time (days)
_sa.
Figure foIo:
Seulell1Clll- FlU Curve Example
SpllmBDS Tsland
Houston. TedS
A6
GRIFFEV/EDMONSON
PAGE 06
\
S&ME Spillman Report.max
\
e
.
.A
Spilmans Island
7-ft Wick Spacing. i-year Surcharge. 1000 psf Container Loadin
Surcharge Elevation: +37.3 ft ML T
I
o~
I Jii't 1111\' I I ""'1
I "'1 ~
J Illlllf
S&ME Spillman Report.max
LA5r
e
/Y/cE r//V6 / ~ /
. '. e
MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 9, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Engelken at 6:Q2~P'~~~ p'
Members of the Committee Present: Chairperson Chuck Engelken"S~w:~i1members
Mike Mosteit and Peter Griffiths ",
Members Absent: None
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City,~ecretary Martha
Gillett and Assistant City Manager John Joerns . -, .
Others Present: James Suber, Barbara Suber, Tom Garrett, Ginny qarrett and Laurence
Tobin d,."
2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 17",2003 BAYPORT
EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING "
Motion was made by Councilmember Mosteit to approve the Minutes of the Bayport
Expansion Review Committee Meeting on June 30. 2003. as presented.. Second by
Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
3. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND'~ITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PORT OF HOUST~N
EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE
There were no taxpayers wishing to address the Committee.
4. DISCUSS AND REVIEW FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP AC;r STUDY FOR THE
PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED BA YPO~1;- SIDP CHANNEL
CONTAINER/CRIDSE TERMINAL AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION
'f.':
Chairperson Chuck Engelken read City Attorney Knox Askins' le,tter of July 7,2003.
The Committee agreed not to recommend City Council participate in the lawsuit against
the Corps of Engineers.
Chairperson Engelken noted La Porte's options:
· could participate
· not participate
I .i,.... ;,..
Cha6pel'~on' Engelken notec;tt:xec~t~~c:,P~~A~~,)9t~~. ~,ort 'of. n~ust9.n Authority, Tom
I{('fnegay'~; letter of J~, 26-l20~'jT~r: AAi1g#~~~~eNioried:tti~ ~p;o7 State
linpr~rnentati~ Plan being, sh~rt;, ~?~;~~~$.~~!~~:P:9~qi\1~ the para~~ph, below the bullets,
on:the last"page p~,the draft le~er itfrC;$~n;s~' t~J~~ :f.wS.
'-aAt ~
fort of Houston ExpanSio.View Committee - July 10, 2003 e
Page 2
7-9-03 Bayport Expansion Review Committee Minutes
Committee Member Mike Mosteit stated there is not enough citizen involvement to join
the lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Assistant City Manager John Joerns distributed a draft letter addressed to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and explained its' contents. Mr, Joerns noted there might need to be
a separate letter to the Port regarding being a good corporate neighbor.
Committee Member Griffiths suggested creating a La Porte Area Citizen's Advisory
Committee.
With the Committee's agreement, Mr. Griffiths suggested bolding the second paragraph
on the first page of Staffs letter; bolding the negative environmental impacts on the next
to the last paragraph; and removal of the table and sentence above the table and the
paragraph immediately below the table on the first page; add Spillman Island, as an
alternative sight, on the next to last paragraph; and remove Fairmont Parkway from the
last paragraph, on the last page.
Mr. James Suber of 3902 Bonita, La Porte, Texas, urged Bay Colony Park to close.
Laurence Tobin, Mayor Pro-Tern of Taylor Lake Village, noted that the use of the large
cranes would cause loss of privacy to citizens.
The Committee advised staff to determine ifthe Noise Ordinance would be violated. If
so, the Committee would like Staff to note in their letter.
Several handouts were provided to Committee.
Mr. Joerns will revise the letter and distribute to Council by July 10,2003.
Commissioner Sylvia Garcia will not participate in the Chronicle Editorial Board
Meeting.
The Committee would like to move forward with a response to the FEIS to the Corps of
Engineers by July 16,2003. It was the consensus of the committee not to recommend to
City Council to participate in the lawsuit at this time. The committee did not feel it had
adequate time to study the lawsuit matter. In addition, the City Council only directed the
Committee to recommend a response to the FEIS.
5. NEW BUSINESS
Add request for a supplemental study to Staffs letter to the Corps.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Chairperson Engelken wants the City to do the right thing, looking at both sides of the
"no win" situation. Committee Member Mosteit noted looking at responsibilities for all
citizens. Committee Member Griffiths had the same comments as the others, and
thanked the citizens for attending the meeting, and thanked Mr. Joerns for his input.
'ort of Houston ExpanSio.View Committee - July 10,2003 e
Page 3
Page 3 - Bayport Expansion Minutes July 9, 2003
7. ADJO~ENT
There being no further business to come before the Committee, this meeting was duly
adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
There are no additional meetings scheduled for this committee at this time. Therefore,
the City Secretary and the Chairman will approve the minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
~~.Auu
Martha A. Gillett, TRMC
City Secretary
Passed and approved on this 10th day of July 2003.
Chairman Chuck Engelken
Ck-d ~
e
e
MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
JUNE 30, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Engelken at 6:00 p.m.
Members of the Committee Present: Chairperson Chuck Engelken, Councilmembers
Mike Mosteit and Peter Griffiths
Members Absent: None
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: Assistant City Secretary
Sharon Harris
Others Present: Spero Pomonis, James Suber, Barbara Suber, Tom Garrett, Ginny
Garrett, Laurence Tobin and Mayor Norman Malone
2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 17, 2003 BAYPORT
EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
Motion was made by Councilmember Engelken to approve the Minutes of the Bavport
Expansion Review Committee Meeting: on June 30. 2003. as presented. Second by
Councilmember Griffiths. The motion carried.
3. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PORT OF HOUSTON
EXPANSION REVIEW COMMITTEE
James Suber of 3902 Bonita La Porte, Texas, commended the Committee for their effort
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and encouraged them to continue with the
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Ginny Garrett of 203 Bay Colony La Porte, Texas, asked the Committee to consider the
impact Bayport Expansion would have on the Bay Colony residents and the entire
community.
Tom Garrett of 203 Bay Colony La Porte, Texas, expressed his concern of the impact of
property values going down in the community due to Bayport Expansion,
Laurence Tobin, Mayor Pro-Tern of Taylor Lake Village, commended the Committee for
their efforts and desires the best solution for Bayport Expansion and the local cities,
4. DISCUSS AND REVIEW FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR THE
PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY'S PROPOSED BAYPORT SIDP CHANNEL
CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL
The Committee discussed the final document. It was the consensus of the Committee to
be sure all the previous items of adverse affect, listed in the previous letter from Council,
have been addressed in the final study.
e
e
Page 2
The Committee discussed the letter (see attached) sent to City Council dated June 26,
2003 by Tom Kornegay, Executive Director of the Port of Houston Authority.
Chairperson Chuck Engelken discussed the Galveston Bay Conservation & Preservation
Bayport FEIS Meeting (see attached) he attended on June 25, 2003 with State
Representative John Davis, and a number of citizens also in attendance.
The Committee agreed to do the following:
Councilman Peter Griffiths and Assistant City Manager John Joerns will continue to
work on drafting a letter for the next meeting; at that time they will decide if the
Committee wants to send an additional letter regarding the final report.
The Committee decided to have City Attorney, Knox Askins, review the Bayport lawsuit
(see attached) and provide his comments to the Committee, with a full report at the July
14,2003 Council Meeting.
The Committee will confirm a meeting date that is tentatively scheduled at the City of
Taylor Lake Village, being coordinated by Mayor Natalie O'Neill. If the meeting is held,
the Committee recommends having representation from the City of La Porte.
Representation will consist of Committee members and any City Council members that
would like to attend.
A full report will be provided at the July 14,2003 Council Meeting.
5. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business discussed.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Committee had no further comments.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Committee, this meeting was duly
adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
"-1YItUiJJ~ ~
Martha A. Gillett, TRMC
City Secretary
Passed and approved on this 9th day of July 2003.
Chairman Chuck Engelken
cLJL ~
e
e
IF CO) rn TI CO) IF IHI CO) 111 ~ TI CO) I\J .A\ l1J TI IHI CO) rn II TI )y
EXECUTIVE OFFICES: I II EAST LOOP . HOUSTON. TEXAS 77029-4327
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 2562 . HOUSTON. TEXAS 77252-2562
TELEPHONE: (713) 670-2400 . FAX: (713) 670-2429
H.T. KORNEGAY
Executive Director
(713) 670-2480
June 26, 2003
The Honorable Chuck Engelken
Councilman
City of La Porte
604 W. Fairmont Pkwy.
La Porte, TX 77571
Dear Councilman Engelken:
The Port of Houston Authority believes that vigorous public discussions are essential to
ensure that all questions and concerns related to the potential design, construction, and
operation of the proposed Bayport Container and Cruise Terminal are addressed. The
public process is severely undermined, however, by the kind of distorted analyses and
misinterpretations that have been perpetuated by members of the Galveston Bay
ConserVation and Preservation Association (GBCP A).
For example~' members of GBCP A have asserted that Spilman Island, an active disposal
site for dredge material from the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel,
is a feasible alternative to Bayport. Their assertions were based on the results of a new
study released May 16 by S&ME, Inc., a South Carolina-based engineering contractor for
the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department. While the PHA actively supported
the independent analysis performed by S&ME and concurs with its technical accuracy,
the results must be understood and interpreted in light of the assumptions on which the
analysis is based.
The S&ME report assumed six inches of post-construction settlement, and considered a
range of loading conditions, some of which are lower than the actual calculated design
loads for the terminal paving. Using different and, in our opinion, unacceptable
assumptions, the resulting analysis lowered the cost of stabilizing the poor soils at
Spilman Island, and ignored the expensive costs to protect and repair pavement,
underground utilities when large settlement occurs, and the impact on equipment
operations. Local experts familiar with Houston construction requirements agree that the
true cost to stabilize soils at Spilman Island is at the high end of the range of the S&ME
report - or about $ 210 million more - than at Bayport, which requires no additional
stabilization cost. The S&ME report itself recognizes that stabilization of Spilman Island
would cost considerably more than the Bayport alternative and also cautions that their
estimate in excess of $200 million does not include "other cost issues" such as "pipeline
relocations, acquisitions of a' new dredge disposal site, parking garage costs, etc.
e
e
Members of the GBCP A continue to make incorrect comparisons between the Spilman
Island site and the site for the proposed terminal at Shoal Point currently being developed
by Texas City. The GBCP A's contrast between the estimated costs of stabilizing Shoal
Point ($90,000 per acre, a cost which is only valid for the most stable portion of their
site) and the PHA's estimate for Spilman Island ($258,750 per acre) fails to recognize the
difference between the composition of the materials placed at each site. Shoal Point soils
are composed of harder clays; which have consolidated naturally during years of
inactivity. Spilman Island is an active dredge material disposal site, consisting primarily
of soft, silt materials dredged from the Houston Ship Channel - material so unstable as
to prevent walking on most of the site. The S&ME analysis confirms that the cost to
prepare the soil at Spilman Island for construction is at least twice as expensive as Shoal
Point.
The GBCP A has stated, "building on a dredge spoil would have no impacts on
environmentally sensitive wetlands and coastal prairie. . ." This assertion ignores the fact
that the elimination of Spilman Island as an active dredge disposal site requires the
development of a replacement site in the same general region of Galveston Bay. Sites in
this area are extremely limited, and it is safe to say that such a site would be over 500
acres in size, cost more than $150 million, and result in significant environmental impacts
to wetlands and coastal prairies.
One member of GBPCA was recently quoted as stating that the S&ME report "adopts
conservative assumptions" with regard to cost. In fact, S&ME acknowledges that the
average cost for fill stated from their source of cost data appears ''unrealistically low",
and, therefore they adopted a value more in line with anticipated costs. The PHA and
local experts believe that the S&ME report underestimated the cost to import and
eventually remove hundreds of thousands of truckloads of earth, to be placed up to 18
feet high on Spilman Island to help stabilize the soil. In addition, it appears the S&ME
report also didn't consider the cost of purchasing the material or the full cost of its
removal.
The GBCP A also contends that choosing Spilman Island over Bayport would reduce the
PHA's costs for land acquisition and environmental mitigation, while reversing the
potential for local property tax revellue'losses. In truth, because Li.c Spilman Island site is
smaller, additional off site acreage would have to be acquired - either by the PHA or by
private interests - in order to ensure the terminal could accommodate current and future
market demands. The lack of cruise and industrial co-development in the Spilman Island
plan would actually reduce revenue to the PHA and increase the need for supplemental
public funding.
The PHA's design for the Bayport facility includes several mitigation features for
environmental impacts. For example, the use of clean fuel and clean engine technology
will help reduce air emissions. The PHA has also committed to help fund several local
transportation projects in the Bayport area in an effort to increase the safety and
efficiency of the local transportation network while reducing congestion and air pollution.
e
e
A three-mile long buffer zone around the facility will include a landscaped sight and
sound berm that will be 20 feet tall. On-site stormwater ponds and passive treatment
facilities will intercept sediment from site runoff, and also control oil and grease.
Lighting systems designed to use specially designed fixtures will limit nighttime glare
and light spillage impacts. The 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 up to 200 acres of inter-tidal marsh.
The Port of Houston Authority has drawn on expertise developed in other ports around
the world to make the proposed Bayport facility environmentally sound and economically
feasible. To that end, we will continue to work to address all public concerns and issues
regarding the proposed facility, setting a new standard in the maritime industry for
enVirOIll'nental stewardship--and community,friendliness. The Port Authority wants to be a
good neighbor and will work hard to meet that goal.
e
e
SUGGESTED BAYPORT COMMENTS
It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that everyone writes a comment letter about the
Bayport FEIS to the Corps of Engineers, with copies to the EP A, Congressmen'
Lampson 'and DeLay, and Harris Co. Commissioner Sylvia Garcia (the addresses
are on the back). The deadline is July 16, 2003.
1. The issuance of the Shoal Point permit has not been considered in the FEIS.
That is a huge issue. The analysis of alternatives as presented is false. The need
for the proposed action is false. At the least, the false statements must be '
corrected. The Corps issued the Shoal Point permit. They knew that the
information in the PElS was false. We have a right to a full and fair analysis of
alternatives., '
2. The container and cruise terminals do not have to be located together. The
Corps admits in the FEIS that there is no functional relationship between the two.
They do not have to be at th~ same location. However, the PElS does not
evaluate placing the cruise terminal in Galveston or Pelican Island, for example, ,
and the Port of Houston's container facility at Spilmans Island. The alternative
analysis must be redone.
3. Harris County'just released a report on the cost of developing Spilmans
Island that concludes that the cost is ~uch lower than indicated by the Port
01 Houston Authority. This report must be considered in evaluating whether or
not Sp;lman~ is a. viable alternative to Bayport.
4. In December 2002, new topographic information was released for Harris
County by Harris County and FEMA as part of a LIDAR study. This data
must be used to reanalyze the acreage of jurisdictional wetlands at the
Bayport site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the wetlands on
this site are unique and of national importance, yet only 19.7 of the 140 acres are
regulated. If the Corps used the new topo data, the full 140 acres would likely be
jurisdictional. If the Corps uses this information, then alternative sites will
certainly have less environmental impact and denial of the Bayport permit may be
mandated.
S. In mid-2002, a study was released by EP A, stating that diesel emissions
caused cancer. This study was, delivered to the Corps. The Corps has failed to
,undertake any'analysis of the increased risk of cancer associated with the
extensive diesel air pollution coming from Bayport. There is no safe exposure
level for carcinogens. There is only varying degrees of risk. The people living
near the Bayport site need to be told the truth about this issue.
6. We are just now seeing the results of air quality, noise and vibration studies,
all of which show violation of standards, health effects and/or significant
disruption of homes. These studies are not complete.
7. We need an analysis of the impact of widening and deepening the Houston
and Bayport Ship Channels that is likely to occur if this Bayport permit is
issued. The Port of Houston Authority is seeking approval to construct a 56 deep
e
e
Galveston 'Bay Conservation &
Preservation Asso'ciation (GBCP A)
BENEFIT BRUNCH
It's been more than five years now since we first heard about the Bayport
plan amazing! Thanks to everyone/or your staying power, without
which we might already have a container po.rt in the neighborhood. As it
is, we are successfully keeping the project from happening at Bayport.
Come and celebrate~ and hear more about it, and let's stick with it!
WHEN:
WHERE:
WHA T:
COST:
Sunday July 13, 2003 (3 days before close of the FEIS
comment period)
11:30 A.M.- 3:30 P.M.
Natalie O'Neill's Home
420 Kirby Blvd.
T~ylor Lake Village" TX 77586
Sunday Brunch
Guest Speaker - Jim Blackburn
Guest Musicians - Joanna Gipson,
, Murray Blade'
525 . ticket in advance
535 at the door
Advance ticket sales - please send your cheek before July
10, 2003 to:
GBCPA
P.O.Box 323
Seabrook, TX 77586
For further information caD GBCP A at 281-326-3343
AU donations are tax deductible and go to GBCPA, a 501(c)(3)
e
e
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
(1) THE CITY OF SHOREACRES, (2) THE fi
CITY OF TAYLOR LAKE VILLAGE, fi
(3) GALVESTON BAY CONSERVATION fi
AND PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION fi
(GBCPA), (4) THE GALVESTON- fi
HOUSTON ASSOCIATION FOR SMOG ' fi
PREVENTION (GBASP), (5) TEXAS fi
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES fi
(TCONR), (6) GALVESTON BAY fi
FOUNDATION (GBF), (7) HOUSTON fi
AUDUBON SOCIETY (HAS), (8) HOUSTON fi
YACHT CLUB (BYC), (9) fi
,PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN' fi
SEAFOOD CONC~RNED ENTERPRISES fi
(PISCES), AND (10) GULF RESTORATION fi
NETWORK (GRN), fi
Plaintiffs, fi
fi
v. fi CIVIL ACTION NO
fi
(1) COLONEL LEONARD D. fi
WATERWORTH, DISTRICT ENGINEER, fi
GALVESTON DISTRICT - U.S. ARMY fi
CORPS OF ENGINEERS; (2) LIEUTENANT fi
GENERAL ROBERT B. FLOWERS, , fi
CO~ERANDCHmFOF fi
ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF fi
ENGINEERS; 0) HONORABLE LES fi
BROWNLEE, ACTING'SECRETARY OF " g
THE ARMY; AND (4) U.S. ARMY CORPS , 'fi
OF ENGINEERS fi
Defendants. fi
fi
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND
APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME NOW, the Cities of Shoreacres and Taylor Lake Village, the Galveston Bay
Conservation and Preservation Association ("GBCPA"), the Galveston-Houston Association for
Smog Prevention ("GHASP"), the Texas Committee on Natural Resources ("TCONR"), the
1.
e
e
Galveston Bay Foundation ("GBF"), the Houston Audubon Society ("HAS"), the Houston Yacht
Club ("HYC"), the Professionals Involved in Seafood Concerned Enterprises ("PISCES"), and
the Gulf Restoration Network ("GRN"), and complain of Col. Leonard D. Waterworth, District
Engineer, Galveston District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Lieutenant General Robert B.
Flowers, Commander and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Honorable'Les
Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiffs claim. that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .for the Galveston District
(" Galveston District") has failed to comply with federal law when evaluating the permit
application ,by the Port of Houston Authority ("PHA ") to construct the Bayport Container and
Cruise Terminal Facility ("Bayport Project") in and along Galveston 'Bay in Harris and
Chambers Counties, Texas.
2. First, Plaintiffs seek a ruling from this Court that the recently released Final
Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for the Bayport Project does not comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A") by failing to address significant new
circumstances and/or information in a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
("SDEIS") in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
that are controlling over the actions of the Galveston District in its consideration of the PRA's
permit application.
3. ,Second, Plaintiffs seek to nullify the Galveston District's policy statement
regarding its criteria for determining jurisdictional wetlands as an illegal rule -making not in
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and have the Galveston District's
2.
e
.
jurisdicti,onal wetland determination for the Bayport Project location invalidated and re-
examined without such a determination being based upon this illegal rule.
4. Third, Plaintiffs seek to have this Court declare that overland flow of surface
water that connects wetlands with navigable waters is sufficient to make these wetlands
jurisdictional waters of the United States under ~ 404 of the Clean Water Act due to the water
quality nexus.
5. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to have this Court remand the delineation of jurisdictional
wetlands back to the Corps for further evaluation in light of new topographic information and in
light of the comments filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") arguing
that the extent of jurisdictional wetlands at the site was greater than identified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
II. JURISDICTION
6. This action arises under the National Environme~tal Policy Act ("NEP A") of
1~69 as amended, 42 U.S.C. ~ 4321 et. seq., and the implementing regulations of said act.
Plaintiffs seek judicial review pursuant to the NEP A and the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), 5 V.S.C. ~ 701-706, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. ~ 220 I (a) and
~ 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 V.S.C. ~ 1331 (federal question
jurisdiction).
ill. VENUE
7. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.~ 1391 (b) and (e) because the Galveston
District and portions of the Bayport Project are located in this district.
3.
e e
IV. PARTIES
8. The City of Shoreacres is a general law city in Harris County, Texas and its
mailing address is 601 Shoreacres, Shoreacres, Texas 77571.
9. The City of Taylor Lake Village is a general law city in Southeast Harris County,
Texas and its mailing address is 500 Kirby, Taylor Lake Village, Texas, 77586.
10. GBCP A is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to restore and enhance
Galveston Bay and its estuaries, and its mailing address is 2600 Nasa Road One, Suite 103,
Seabrook, Texas, 77586.
11. GHASP is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to protect the health of
residents of the Houston-Galveston area from air pollution including ozone and fine particle
matter, and its mailing address is 3015 Richmond, Suite 201, Houston, Texas 77098-3013.
12. TCONR is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to study the ecosystem and
educate Texans about their natural environment, and its mailing address is 1301 South Interstate
35, Suite 301, Austin, TexaS, 78741.
13. GBF is an organization committed to protecting and preserving Galveston Bay
and its estuaries, and its mailing address is 17324-A Highway 3, Webster, Texas 77598.
14. HAS is a nonprofit organization that promotes the conservation and appreciation
of birds and wildlife habitat, and its mailing address is 440 Wilchester Blvd., Houston, Texas,
77079.
15. HYC B a boating organization, which participates in and organizes regattas, and
provides sailing lessons and other recreational water activities in the Galveston Bay, and its
mailing address is 3620 Miramar Drive, P.O. Box 1276, La Porte, Texas, 77571.
4.
e
e
16. PISCES is an organlzation of commercial fishenilen in Galveston Bay, and its
mailing address is Route 3, Box 384, Dickinson, Texas, 77539.
17. GRN is an organization comprised of forty groups throughout the Gulf States
whose purpose is to protect the resources of the Gulf Region, and its mailing address is P.O. Box
2245, New Orleans, Louisiana 70176.
18. Col. Leonard D. Waterworth is sued in his official capacity as District Engineer of
the Galveston District of the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and may be served at 2000 Fort
Point Road, Galveston, Texas 77550 in person or by mail at P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, Texas
77553-1229.
19. Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers is sued in his official capacity as
Commander and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and may be served at
441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20314.
20. Honorable Les Brownlee is sued in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
Army and may be served at 101 Anny Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310-0101.
21. The United State Army Corps of Engineers is sued as an agency of the United
States Government and may be served by serving Lieutenant General Robert B.' Flowers
Commander and Chief of Engineers of the l!.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a,t 441 G Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20314.
v. FACTS
A. BACKGROUND
22. The PHA is proposing to construct its Bayport Project on approximately 1100
acres of land in southeastern Harris County.
5.
e
e
23. The proposed Bayport Project site is located between the cities of Seabrook (to
the south) and ShoreacresILaPorte (to the north) and s 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.
24. In order to construct docks along the Bayport Channel, to conduct dredging
activitie$ in the Bayport Channel and in Galveston Bay, and to discharge dredge and fill material
into waters of the United States,.all of which are necessary to build the proposed Bayport facility,
the PHA was required to obtain permits from the Ga1v~ston District of the CorPs of Engineers
under ~ 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. ~ 403) and ~ 404 of the Clean
. Water Act (33 U.S.C. ~ 1344).
25. The proposed Bayport Project permit application #21520 by the PHA was first
filed with the Galveston District in 1998.
26. There have been several revisions made by the PHA to its original permit
application, as reflected in various public notices.
27. The most recent public notice dated May 16, 2003 announced to the public that
the PHA proposes to construct seven container ship berths, three cruise ship berths, associated
docks and storage and a large rail.yard at the Bayport site.
28. The cost of the proposed Bayport facility is approximately $1.2 billion, with most
ifnot all of this cost being provided by taxpayers.
29. Since 1998, GBCPA, as well as other environmental groups and many local
municipalities, have ~pposed the PHA's proposed terminal facility being located at Bayport.
6.
e
e
30. Other alternative sites have been identified within the Galveston Bay system for
locating this terminal facility that are less environmentally damaging and that are acceptable to
the plaintiffs.
.31. A scoping meeting on the proposed Bayport Project was conducted by the
Galveston District in 1999 pursuant to the rules of the CEQ for preparing environmental impact
statements (EISs) and about 2,500 people attended.
32. A Draft EIS (DEIS) on the proposed Bayport Project was prepared by the
Galveston District and released in November, 2001.
33. Over 6,000 people came to the Galveston District's public hearing .regarding the
DEIS for the Bayport Project, which was conducted in December, 2001 at the George R. Brown
Convention Center in downtown Houston.
34. Numerous issues were raised by the public at the December 2001 hearing about
the lack of adequate analysis in the DEIS of the Bayport Project's environmental impacts,
including wetlands, air quality, and noise impacts, as well as reasonably foreseeable future
impacts to Galveston Bay.
35. The Galveston District has received over 2,000 comments regarding the Bayport
Project from not only 1b.e public, but also local, sta~, and federal agencies, as well.as elected
officials.
36. Included in these comments were requests for a Supplemental DEIS that would
address the inadequacies of the Bayport DEIS.
37. On May 2, 2002, GBCP A wrote to the Corps requesting a Supplemental Draft
EIS regarding wetlands, noise, and the alternatives analysis as well as requesting a re-
examination of jurisdictional wetlands.
7.
e
e
38. On July 23, 2002, U.S. Congressman Nick Lampson wrote to Co!. Waterworth,
requesting a Supplemental DEIS because the analysis of alternatives was not adequate and not
balanced.
39. . Co!. Waterworth wrote back to Congressman Lampson, stating that the FEIS
would fully address his concerns and stating that publication of a SDEIS was not warranted.
40. On September 5, 2002, GBCPA again requested a Supplemental Draft EIS be
issued after the second revised public notice.
41. On December 30, 2002, GBCP A, the City of Shoreacres, the City of Taylor Lake
Village, the El Jardin Subdivision of the City of Pasadena, the City of Pasadena, the City of
Seabrook, the City of EI Lago, the Galveston Bay Foundation, GHASP, Houston Audubon
Society, TCO~ PISCES, GRN, RYC, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and National
Wildlife Federation all wrote Col. Waterworth requesting a SDEIS due to new circUIi1stances or
information, including jurisdictional wetlands issues, the USEPA diesel carcinogen study, the
PM2.S issue, and the inadequacy of the alternatives analysis.
42. On January 15,2003, Co!. Waterworth responded to the December 30,2002 letter
stating that he disagreed that significant new circumstances or information exist that rise to the
level of requiring a SDEIS.
43. Col. Waterworth stated in the January 15, 2003 letter that the FEIS would address
the concerns expressed in the December 30,2003 letter asking for a SDEIS~
44. The Galveston District issued a Final EIS on the Bayport Project on
May 16, 2003.
8.
e
e
B. NEW INFORMATION
45. There are significant new circumstances and/or information that have either not
been included in the recently released FEIS for Bayport or have been included in the FEIS for
the very first time, both of which necessitate the issuance of a Supplemental DEIS that addresses
these significant issues in a manner that allows for meaningful public review and comment.
46. Many of the so-called new circumstances were known to the Corps of Engineers
prior to the release of the FEIS on May 16,2003 but were not included in the FEIS.
(1). THE NEWLY PERMlITED CONTAINER F ACll..ITY AT SHOAL POINT
47. The Galveston District recently permitted a new container port on Galveston Bay.
48. On April 15,2003, Co!. Waterworth of the Galveston District signed the Record
of Decision ("ROD"). approving issuance of a permit to the City of Texas City to construct a
container terminal facility at Shoal Point near Texas City ("Shoal Point permit").
49. The Shoal Point permit allows construction of a six-berth container terminal
facility on a spoil disposal island located behind the Texas City industrial complex in Galveston
Bay.
50. The permitted Shoal Point facility will actually move. more containers, as
measured in TEU's (twenty foot equivalent units), than will the proposed Bayport facility. .
51. In the ROD discussing the Shoal Point facility and its EIS, Col. Waterworth
determined that the Shoal Point site was the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative site in the Galveston Bay system for a container terminal facility.
52. The proposed Bayport site was evaluated by the Galveston District in its Shoal
Point FEIS as one of the alternative sites for locating the Shoal Point container terminal facility,
but the Bayport facility was found to be more environmentally damaging and was not selected.
9.
e
e
53. The Bayport FEIS was released by the Galveston District about a month after
Col. Waterworth signed the Shoal Point ROD.
54. In the Bayport FEIS, the Shoal Point site is still identified as a reasonable and
practicable alternative for locating the Bayport Project.
55. In the Bayport FEIS, there is no mention of the fact that the Shoal Point site had
been found to be the least environmentally damaging alternative and had already been selected
for issuance of a Corps permit to construct a container terminal facility.
56, At this time, the best site as determined by the Corps' Galveston District for
constructing a container port in the Galveston Bay system in the least environmentally damaging
way - Shoal Point - has been issued a permit by the Galveston District.
57. The movement of containers into and out of the Houston/Galveston region in the
near future is secure with the .permitting of the Shoal Point facility.
58. The question before the Galveston District now is whether or not a permit should
be issued for a second container terminal facility on the Galveston Bay system, e.g., the proposed
Bayport facility, given the Shoal Point facility has already been permitted.
59. That question has not been fully or fairly analyzed in any EIS issued to date by
the Galveston District.
(2). Co-Location of Cruise and Container Facilities for the Bayport Project No
Longer Necessary
60. The permit application submitted by the PHA for the proposed Bayport Project
requested a permit allowing the construction of both container berths and cruise berths together
(e.g., co-located).
10.
e
e
61. In the DEIS and the FEIS, the Galveston District has attempted to identify and
evaluate alternative sites that were large enough to allow both the container and the cruise
facilities to be located at the same site.
62. However, in the Bayport FEIS, unlike the DEIS, the Galveston District states for
the first time that it does not consider cruise and container facilities to be functionally dependent.
63. If these facilities are not functionally dependent, then they do not need to be co-
located.
64. Although the Galveston District has established a new circums~ce - container
and cruise terminals are now considered functionally independent - this. conclusion was not
carried through the alternatives analysis in the Bayport FEIS.
65. For example, there was no ap.alysis of a container port at Shoal Point and a cruise
terminal in Galveston, an alternative that is clearly viable after the issuance of the Shoal Point
permit.
66. There are a numbe( of alternative sites to Bayport where only a cruise terminal
could be located, but they were never considered by the Galveston District in its evaluation of
the Bayport Project.
(3). HA1UUS COUNTY'S NEW STUDY OF DEVELOPING SPILMANS ISLAND
67. One of the alternative sites evaluated in the Bayport FEIS is Spilmans Island.
68. Spilmans Island is currently used as a spoil disposal site and is .adjacent to the
existing Barbers Cut container facility of the Port of Houston Authority.
69. The cost of development of Spilmans Island for a container facility has been a
major issue in determining whether Spilmans Island is a practicable alternative to the proposed
Bayport site.
11.
e
e
70. PHA had determined. that developing Spilmans Island would be cost-prohibitive,
due to its being a spoil disposal site.
71. Earlier this year, actingoindependently of the Port of Houston Authority, Harris
County commissioned a study of the cost of developing Spilmans Island.
72. This study by Harris County, dated May 2003, concluded that the cost of
development of Spilmans Island was substantially lower than had been determined by the Port of
Houston Authority.
73. The Galveston District has not considered this new study by Harris County in the
DEIS or FEIS for Bayport in evaluating Spilmans Island as an alternative site.
74. This study by Harris County is new information that significantly affects the
evaluation of alternatives to the proposed Bayport site.
(4). NEW TOPoGRAPmc DATA INCREASES ACREAGE OF JURISDICTIONAL
WETLANDS
75. Wetlands located in the 100-year floodplain of a navigable water are considered
jurisdictional wetlands under the Clean Water Act
76. Some of the wetlands at the Bayport site were determined to be jurisdictional
because they are in the 100-year floodplain.
- .
77. In December,.2002, Harris County and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency ("FEMA") released updated topographic information for Harris County as part of a
study being conducted of the extent of the 100-year floodplains in Harris County.
78. The Galveston District is fully aware of Harris County's on-going study with
FEMA through which the release of this new topographic information occurred.
12.
e
e
79. This updated topographic information is based on LIDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging) data an4 is the best available information for determining the ground elevations
throughout the Bayport site.
80. In accordance with Harris County floodplain regulations, actual ground elevations
at a site are used, in conjunction with the 100-year flood level of the adjoining watercourse, to
determine the extent of the 100-year floodplain.
8!. This new.topographic information confirmed that the ground elevations at the
Bayport site have changed significantly from the elevations reported in both the Bayport DEIS
and FEIS, due primarily to the effects of land surface subsidence.
82; The 100-year floodplain at the Bayport site is determined by the 100-year flood
levels along the Bayport Ship Channel and Pine Gully, which have been determined to be at an
elevation of 12 feet above mean sea level.
83. According to the new topographic information for the Bayport site, significantly
more of the Bayport site is at or below elevation 12 feet than is currently shown in the FEIS.
84. According to the Bayport FEIS, only 7% of the Bayport facility is at or below the
elevation of 12 feet and in the 100-year floodplain.
85. When the new topographic information is consideI;'ed, over 20% of-the Bayport
facility is below elevation 12 feet and in the 1 OO-year .floodplain.
86. The extent of the 100-year floodplain at the Bayport site is critical to the
determination of jurisdictional wetlands.
87. The new topographic data can also be used to identify swales, ditches and other
watercourses that may connect other wetlands at the Bayport site, outside of the 100-year
floodplain, to the adjoining navigable waters, thereby making these wetlands jurisdictional.
13.
e
e
88. The USEP A commented on the Bayport DEIS and disagreed with the Galveston
District's assertion in its DEIS that most of the wetlands on the Bayport site are isolated and
therefore non-jUrisdictional.
89. The USEPA believes that most, if not all, of the wetlands located on the Bayport
site are hydrologically connected to waters of the U.S. through swales, and therefore should be
jurisdictional.
90. This new topographic information is significant and relevant to the determination
of jurisdictional wetlands on the Bayport site.
91. . This new topographic data from Harris County invalidates the jurisdictional
wetland determination for the Bayport site that is presented in the DEIS and FEIS for the
Bayport Project. .
92. Wetlands are important for water quality in Galveston Bay.
93. Wetlands are important as habitat for fish and wildlife.
94. Wetlands are a vital part of the coastal ecology.
95. The proposed Bayport site is full of wetlands.
96. The wetlands on this Bayport site are unique and important.
97. .. The importance of the wetlands at the Bayport site is widely recognized based on
comments from federal resource agencies.
98. For example, .on April 25, 2002 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated in
correspondence to the Galveston District that "[T]he Service believes that the wetland complex
involved [at the Bayport site] is of national significance."
99. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also recommended denial of the proposed
Bayport permit.
14.
e
e
100. In the Bayport FEIS, the Galveston District has determined that the Bayport
project would destroy over 146 acres of wetlands.
101. According to the Galveston District, only 19.7 acres of these important wetlands
are jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act, based in part on the extent of the 100-year
floodplain depicted in the FEIS.
102. If the extent of the 100-year floodplain at the Bayport site is based on the new
topographic information, over 40 acres of these important wetlands would be jurisdictional under
the Clean Water Act.
103. If other hydrologic connections exist, most if not all of the over 146 acres of
wetlands at the Bayport site are jurisdictional.
104. The Bayport Project's proposed compensatory mitigation plan indicates that only
66 acres of new wetlands would be constructed to mitigate for the loss of over 146 acres of total
wetlands, resulting in a net loss of over 80 acres of these unique and important wetlands.
105. We do not have many wetlands left along the west shoreline 6fGalveston Bay.
106. Every acre is important.
(5). USEP A's NEW STUDY ON AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM DIESEL CARCINOGENS
107. . As many as seven diesel-powered container ships and three diese1-:-powered cruise
ships could be docked at the proposed Bayport facility at any time.
108. Over 4,500 diesel-powered trucks will enter and leave the proposed Bayport
facility each day.
109. At least two trains between 5,000 and 7,000 feet long. and having two diesel-
powered locomotives for each train will enter and leave the proposed Bayport facility each day.
15.
e
e
110. Diesel-powered cranes and container movers will be used throughout the
proposed Bayport facility.
111. The Bayport DEIS failed to address the health effects of diesel emissions
associated with the proposed Bayport Project operations.
112.. In May, 2002, prior to the issuance of the FEIS, the USEP A issued its Health
Assessment Document of Diesel Exhaust.
113. In this study, USEPA determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust is
likely to pose a lung cancer hazard, as well as other types of lung damage, to humans.
114. Over 5,000 pe~ple live within one mile of the proposed Bayport facility.
115. Although this USEP A Health Assessment document was delivered to the Corps of
Engineers in 2002 by GBCP A, the Galveston District failed to consider this document or include
an analysis of the increase in cancer cases that would be caused in the adjacent population by the
operation of diesel sources at the proposed Bayport facility in a Supplemental DEIS.
(6). NEW AIR QUALITY IMPACfS FROM FINE PARTICULATE MATTER
116. PM2.S is particulate matter air pollution 2.5 microns and smaller in size.
117. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM2.S, including both a 24-hour standard (65 micrograms per
cubic meter) and an annual standard (15 micrograms per cubic m.eter).
118. PM2.S will be emitted from construction activities at the proposed Bayport site and
from the operation of diesel equipment at the proposed Bayport site.
119. Although comments regarding PM2.s had been submitted at the scoping meeting
by some of the plaintiff organizations, the Bayport DEIS did not analyze the emission of PM25
16.
e
e
from the proposed Bayport facility construction or operation and did not determine whether or
not the PM2.s standard would be violated.
120. As a result of the comments to the Bayport DEIS, the Galveston District included
an analysis of PM2.S (fm~ particle) air pollution impacts that was released to the public for the
fIrst time :when the Bayport FEIS was released on May 16,2003.
121. In the Executive Summary of the Bayport FEIS, the Galveston District for the
fIrst time s~tes that, in the year 2010, the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard
("NAAQS") for PM2.S will be violated.
122. PM2.S is composed of very small particles that are inhaled deep into human lungs.
123. The scientific literature contains recent articles linking PM2.s to mortality as well
as to sickness and hospital a~ssions.
124. PM2.S can kill you - it is a truly dangerous pollutant.
125. Over 5,000 people live within a mile of the proposed Bayport site.
126. Well over 50,000 people live within three miles of the Bayport site.
127. After five years of evaluating this proposed Bayport Project, people living near
this Bayport location have now been told, for the fIrst time on May 16, 2003, by the Galveston
District, that Federal air quality standards for this dangerous pollutant will be violated by the
Bayport Project.
128. This is not how the NEPA process is supposed to work.
(7). NEW NOISE IMPACTS To RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES
129. Comments concerning the inadequate analysis of significant noise impacts to
adjacent residential subdivisions were submitted following the Bayport DEIS release.
17.
e
e
130. The Bayport FEIS now presents a new analysis of the noise impacts of the
proposed Bayport Project on adjacent neighborhoods. .
131. The new analysis reveals significant noise impacts will occur to nearby residential
neighborhoods from the Bayport Project as proposed by PHA.
132. The Bayport FEIS states that sound levels may mcrease in the EI Jardin
subdivision by over 5 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and in other nearby areas by over 10 dBA
during that same time.
133. According to the USEPA, noise increases by more than 10 dBA are potentially
startling or sleep disturbing.
134. The City of Pasadena municipal code, which applies to EI Jardin, prohibits an
instantaneous sound level increase at a residential property greater than 5 dBA from 10 p.m. to
7 a.m..
135. The Bayport FEIS states that the City of Pasadena noise ordinance will be
violated by the Bayport Project as proposed by PHA unless the port is closed from 10 p.m. to 7
a.m.
136.. The Bayport FEIS also concludes that residential property values will decline
because of these significant noise impacts.
137. For the first time, after five years of controversy, the Galveston District now
admits that the Bayport facility will create major noise impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.
138. There has been no public hearing or discussion about this significant new noise
impact.
18.
e
e
(8). New Vibration Impacts to Nearby Residences
139. Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, un~xpected, or undesired sound
that disrupts or interferes with normal human activities.
140. Noise-induced vibration can occasionally be caused by ship maneuvering.
141. The City of Pasadena Municipal Code prohibits any vibration that can be detected
without the aid of instruments at any point within a residential building.
142. The Bayport DEIS failed to address the potential impacts to nearby residential
communities due to vibrations caused by construction and operation of the Bayport Project.
143. The Bayport FEIS now includes a new section containing a discussion and
analysis of vibration impacts.
144. The Bayport FEIS now states that ship maneuvering may occasionally cause
noise-induced vibration at residential structures up to 4,600 feet from the Bayport Ship Channel,
the effects of which would be perceived as window rattling or wall vibration.
145. There are over 5,000 people living within one mile of the proposed Bayport
facility.
146. The Bayport FEIS now concludes that this noise-induced vibration impact caused
by the .operations of the proposed Bayport Project is long-term and considered potentially
significant depending on the design, condition and orientation of each residential structure.
147.. Residences located in Shady Oaks and Bay Colony subdivisions to the north, the
EI Jardin and Surf Oaks subdivisions to the south, and the subdivisions of the City of Taylor
Lake Village to the west are all within the range of this potentially significant noise-induced
vibration impact.
19.
e
e
148. Prior to the release of the FEIS these residents had been given no~ a clue that a
significant vibrations impact would occur in their neighborhood. .
(9). New Information on Post-Panamax Vessels Necessitates Future Deepening of
the Bayport and Houston Ship Channels
149. GBCPA and other plaintiffs have been concerned since the inception of the
Bayport Project about whether the Houston Ship Channel and the Bayport Channel would need
to be deepened sometime in the future to accommodate the larger container ships called post-
Panamax vessels that are now used in maritime commerce.
150. The J3ayport channel is currently dredged to 40 feet of depth
151. The Houston Ship Channel is now being dredged to 45 feet.
152. The initial public notice describing the proposed Bayport container .facility
identified that the PHA was seeking permission to construct the docks adjacent to the container
wharfs to a depth of 56 feet.
153. In the scoping meeting, concern was raised about the potential deepening of the
Houston Ship Channel to 50 feet or greater depths.
154. In the Bayport DEIS, the Corps stated that in order to accommodate existing and
project~d growth i~ vessel activity, further deepening/Widening of the Houston Ship Channel and
its connecting channels would likely be necessary. (DEIS, p.4-15).
155. In the Bayport DEIS in the section entitled "Issues Raised During the Scoping
Process", the Corps identified key topic areas that have been addressed in the DEIS, including
"the impacts of the proposed dredging on marine life in Galveston Bay, including the impacts of
future deepening of the Houston Ship Channel and Bayport channel to at least 50 feet". (DEIS, p.
5-4).
20.
e
e
156. The Bayport DEIS does not include any evaluation or analysis of impacts from
the future deepening of the Houston Ship Channel or Bayport Channel to at least 50 feet.
157. In the Bayport FEIS, the Corps again stated that in order to accommodate existing
and projected growth in vessel activity, further deepening/widening of the Houston Ship Channel
and its connecting channels would likely be necessary. (FEIS, p. 4-19)
158. In the Bayport FEIS in the section entitled "Issues Raised During the Scoping
Process", the Corps again identified key topic areas that have been addressed in the FEIS,
including "the impacts of the proposed dredging on marine life in Galveston Bay, including the
impacts of future deepening of the Houston Ship Channel and Bayport Channel to at least 50
feet." (FEIS, p. 6-3).
159. The Bayport FEIS also does not include any evaluation or analysis of impacts
from the future deepening of the Houston Ship Channel and Bayport Channel to at least 50 feet.
160. In the FEIS in the response to comments, the Corps states that it decided to
exclude consideration of a 50-foot channel based upon the overriding fact that such a project has
not been authorized. (FEIS, p. 453, Response to Comment 35-2).
161. In the FEIS in the response to comments, the Corps further states that in a
regulatory EIS, the Corps. only reviews the project as proposed by the applicant and the PHA has
not proposed to widen or deepen the .Houston Ship Channel or the Bayport channel. (p. 10,
response to comment 1-47).
162. The Bayport FEIS now includes a diagram where wharf cranes proposed for
construction at the Bayport site are specifically labeled as being designed to unload post-
Panamax vessels. (Figure 5, Appendix 1.1 containing the PHA permit application).
21.
e
e
163. The Bayport FEIS now states that, when fully loaded, Post-Panamax vessels
require channel depths between 45 to 53 feet.
164. This new information regarding the required channel depths for fully loaded Post-
Panamax vessels explains the necessity for the future widening and deepening of the Houston
Ship Channel and its connecting channels to at least 50 feet.
165. The Corps has continued to state that deepening of the Houston Ship Channel and
its connecting channels would likely be necessary in the future.
166. The permit application and its various revisions submitted by PHA continue to
request permission to construct the docks at the container berths to. accommodate. a draft of 56
feet.
167. If the public invests $1.2 billion in Bayport through bonds issued by PHA, it is
reasonable to expect that PHA will soon argue that the deeper ship channels are needed to fully
accommodate fully loaded post-panamaX vessels in order to be competitive - to protect our $1.2
billion investment.
168. . A deeper Bayport channel means additional dredging and altered circulation and
salinity patterns.
169. A deeper Houston Ship Channel to ~erve Bayport will bring much more salt water
from the Gulf of Mexico deep into the Galveston Bay system.
170. An increase in salinity is a serious threat to the ecological health and integrity of
the entire Galveston Bay system.
171. The Galveston Bay system is productive because it is an estuary, an area where
salt and fresh water come together.
172. Salinity is the enemy of the oyster reefs.
22.
e
e
173. Salinity is the enemy of the juvenile fish and shellfish that come to the Galveston
Bay nursery.
174. It is now clear that the intent of the Bayport facility is to serve Post-Panamax
vessels, which, when fully loaded, are larger than can be accommodated at the current time by
either the Bayport or Houston Ship Channels, yet the impacts from the deepening of the channels
have never been analyzed in an environmental full disclosure document.
175. Galveston Bay has survived some serious impacts.
176. . If we do not have full disclosure and public discourse about .the long-term impact
. of deeper container ships being berthed at Bayport, Galveston Bay may not survive Bayport.
. (10). SUMMARY
177. The opposition to Bayport is a fight over truth and full and fair treatment of the
impacted public by the regulatory agency.
Shoal Point is already permitted and is about to be constructed.
Shoal Point will service the shipping needs for containers in the Galveston Bay
178.
179.
area.
180.
181.
182.
Bay.
183.
184.
Shoal Point will provide jobs and economic development for the region.
The permitting of Shoal Point is not mentioned in the Baypo~ FEIS.
The public is being misled about the. status of container terminals in Galveston
Other new information is also not discussed in either the Bayport DEIS or FEIS.
The public has a right to be told the truth about the proposed Bayport facility and
has a right to a meaningful opportunity to review this information and to comment upon it.
23.
e
e
185. Co!. Waterworth has refused all requests to prepare a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) as required under the rules of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
186. The public was given thirty (30) days to comment upon the FEIS, and has been
granted an extension of an additional thirty (30) days.
187. The Port of Houston Authority has already advertised for proposals to initiate
construction of the Bayport Project, including a clearing contract (advertised February, 2003),
wharf construction and dredging contract (advertised February, 2003), a container yard contract
(advertised April, 2003), and a Bayport substation (advertised April, 2003), with contract ranges
totaling from $82,142,400.00 to $114,409,000.00.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. CAUSE OF ACTION No.1 - SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS REQUIRED UNDER
NEP A DUE TO SIGNIFICANT NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR INFORMATION
188. Under 40 CFR ~ 1502.9(c)(1)(ii), a supplement to a draft or fmal EIS shall be
prepared when there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
189. Under the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, ~ supplemental
draft of appropriate sections shall also be prepared ap.d circulated if. the Draft EIS was so
inadequate as to preclude meaningful analysis. (40 CFR ~ 1502.9(a)).
190. Plaintiffs allege that significant new circumstances and new information relevant
to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts have arisen since
release of the DEIS regarding the proposed Bayport Project that require the completion of a
SDEIS.
24.
e
e
191. Plaintiffs.allege that the analysis of impacts in the Draft EIS was so inadequate as
to preclude meaningful analysis, requiring a supplemental draft of appropriate sections.
.192. The issuance of the Shoal Point permit by the Galveston District for a container
terminal similar to the proposed Bayport Project represents a significant new circumstance and
significant new information that was known to the Galveston Dis.trict, yet not evaluated in the
Bayport FEIS.
193. Neither the Draft EIS nor the Final EIS presented an alternative analysis wherein
two permits were proposed to be issued by the Galveston District for new container ports at .
different locations on Galveston Bay.
194. Numerous comments have been filed by Plaintiffs and others challenging the
presentation of alternatives in the DEIS.
195. The conclusion by the Galveston District . that the cruise and container terminals
are not functionally dependent upon each other is significant new information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, since there is no
analysis of alternative sites in the Bayport DEIS or FEIS where the cruise terminal is located at a
different site, other than Bayport, from the container terminal (e.g. cruise terminal at Galveston,
container terminal at Shoal Point or Bayport).
196. GBCP A submitted comments that included an expert report concluding that cruise
and container terminals did not need to be co-located.
197. Harris County's recently released study of the feasibility of .developing Spilmans
Island as a container facility represents significant information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts because it makes Spilmans Island
more attractive as an alternative site to the proposed Bayport facility.
25.
e
e
. .
198. The new topographic information from Harris County is significant information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts because it
will increase the extent of jurisdictional wetlands and will increase the mitigation requirements
under NEP A and the ~404 permit program.
199. USEPA's issuance of a guidance document regarding the classification of diesel
emissions as carcinogenic represents significant new information relevant to the environmental
impact of the proposed Bayport facility.
200. Although this diesel study was submitted to the Corps in December, 2002, this
information was ignored in the FEIS.
201. The new PM2.sanalysis contained in the Bayport FEIS, showing that the 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.S will be violated in 2010, is significant new information relevant to the
environmental impact of the proposed Bayport facility.
202. New information regarding significant nOIse and vibration impacts to the
residential communities surrounding the Bayport site presented in the Bayport FEIS is significant
and relevant to the environmental impact of the proposed Bayport facility and was never
presented in the DEIS.
203. Information about the channel depths required by Post-Panamax vesssels and
wharf design is significant and relevant to the necessity for the future deepening of the Houston
Ship Channel and Bayport Channel.
204. The DEIS stated that the marine impacts of widening and deepening the Houston
Ship Channel to at least 50 feet would be presented and it was not.
205. Each of the above-mentioned issues represents significant changed conditions or
new information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action and its
26.
e
e
impacts, and the FEIS must be re-issued as a Supplemental Draft EIS that includes full and fair
/
consideration of this information.
206. The Draft EIS failed to provide sufficient detail about several of these issues and
precluded meaningful analysis.
207. A number of comments were filed requesting the preparation of a Supplemental
Draft EIS prior to the release of the FEIS on May 16,2003.
208. The release of the FEIS represented final agency .action re~arding the request for a
Supplemental Draft EIS.
209. All of the above-mentioned issues are also relevant to the analysis of reasonable
alternatives under NEP A and practicable alternatives under the ~ 404(b)( 1 >. guidelines.
210. It is a violation of NEPA to fail to give the public a meaningful opportunity to
comment at a meaningful time.
211. It is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance with the law in violation
of the APA to issue a DEIS or a FEIS that does not include information known to the agency and
that does not present meaningful alternatives and meaningful analysis upon which the public
may. comment.
212. It is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance with the law in violation
of the AP A for the Galveston District to base a decision regarding the issuance of a permit for
the PHA's proposed Bayport Project on the FEIS in light of the signifiCant new information
discussed above.
213. It is arbitrary, capricious and otherwise not in accordance with the law in violation
of the AP A for the Galveston District of tl;1e Corps to determine not to issue a Supplemental
Draft EIS.
27.
e
e
B. CAUSE OF ACTION No.2: ILLEGAL RULE-MAKING UNDER THE AP A BY
THE GALVESTON DISTRICT OF THE U.S. .ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REGARDING THE EXTENT OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS UNDER ~404 OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
214. On information and belief, plaintiffs assert that there is a significantly greater
acreage of jurisdictional wetlands on the Bayport site than has been identified by the Galveston
District.
215. .Plaintiffs allege that the Galveston District has adopted an illegal rule not
promulgated .under the AP A . that prevents certain types of wetlands from being classified as
jurisdictional, thereby artificially limiting the acres of wetlands subject to ~404 permitting under
the Clean Water Act.
216. On January 9, 2001 the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159
(2001) (SW ANCC).
217. This ruling altered the jurisdictional reach .of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
218.. At its core, the SW ANCC decision prevents the Corps from ass~rting jurisdiction
over isolated wetlands on the basis of the movement of migratory waterfowl.
219. In response to the SWANCC decision, the Corps in Washington, D.C. on
January 15,2003 published its Advance Notice of ProP9sed Rulemaking to address these issues.
220. However, on February 13,2001, the Galveston District unilaterally issued its own
written Policy No. 01-001 regarding wetlands entitled "Subject of AdjacentJIsolated Criteria,"
which was addressed to all regulatory personnel with the Galveston District.
221. This policy states:
28.
e
e
"wetlands are waters that are located within a floodplain or hydrologically
interrelated during flood. events, which occur during a natural cycle within
riverine systems and are driven largely by rainfall and not water of a tidal origin.
However, it should be noted that sheet flow over land outside a floodplain is not
considered a sufficient hydrologic connection. . . II
222. This policy reveals the Galveston District's unique criteria whereby overland
sheet flow of storm water into waters of the United States through wetlands is not a sufficient
hydrologic connection between wetlands and navigable waters to confer federal jurisdiction over
such wetlands. .
223. By issuing this written, conclusory "policy," the Galveston District has engaged in
illegal rule making in violation of the AP A.
224. The AP A requires agencies to undergo formal notice and comment procedure
when undergoing rulemaking. 5 V.S.C. ~ 553.
. 225. These requirements allow the public an opportunity to comment on rules, which
may affect their interests.
226. Policies and guidance, which have the effect of law, should be considered formal
rules and follow proper notice and comment requirements.
227. A policy is a rule when it is legislative or substantive in nature.
228. The Galveston District's Policy No. 01-001 is a rule because it is legislative or
substantive in nature.
229. No notice of this rule was issued. and no opportunity to comment was ever
provided to the public.
230. If the jurisdictional wetlands on the Bayport site were to include all of the
additional wetlands connected by overland sheet flow to waters of the United States,
29.
e
e
substantially more wetland acreage would be under the jurisdiction of the Corps, thus requiring
more mitigation than currently proposed.
231. In the Bayport FEIS, the Galveston District found only 19.7 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands that would be impacted on the proposed Bayport site, with the remaining 126.7 acres of
wetlands being considered non-jurisdictional.
232. The Galveston District has determined that the majority of the wetlands within the
Bayport Project location are non-jurisdictional because their only surface water connection to
navigable waters is by overland sheet flow.
233. Upon information and belief, the Galveston "District is the only district in the
United States that does not consider overland flow as sufficient hydrologic connection in
determining adjacent/jurisdictional wetlands.
234. Plaintiffs are aware that the U.S. Army Corps ofEn~eers for the Seattle District
considers overland flow to be a sufficient hydrologic connection to establish federal jurisdiction
over adjacent wetlands to navigable waters.
235. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the Fort Worth District and the
New Orleans District each use overland flow as sufficient criteria for determining federal
jurisdiction.
236. If the Galveston District's illegal rule pertaining to overland sheet flow were
discarded, the majority of the wetlands at the proposed Bayport Project location would be
considered to be waters of the United States and classified as jurisdictional under the Clean
Water Act.
30.
e
e
237. Plaintiffs allege that the Galveston District violated the prohibition against rule-
making by failing to follow the procedure set out in 5 U.S.C. ~ 553 when they issued
Policy No. 01-001.
C. CAUSE OF ACTION No.3: DECLARATION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AT THE BAYPORT SITE IS INvALID AND MUST
BE RE-EXAMINED
238. Plaintiffs allege that the Corps of Engineers was in error when it determined that
the full extent of jurisdictional wetlands subject to regulation as navigable waters under ~404 of
the Clean Water Act on the Bayport site was 19.7 acres.
239. Plaintiffs allege that a greater acreage of wetlands would be considered
jurisdictional due to their inclusion within the elevation 12 feet flood zone if more accurate
topographic information available to the Galveston District from Harris County and FEMA had
been incorporated into the wetland jurisdictional analysis (see paragraphs 75-84, supra).
240. Plaintiffs allege that a greater acreage of wetlands would be considered
jurisdictional as per the comment submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see
. .
paragraphs 88-89, supra) if the new topographic information available to the Galveston District"
from Harris County and FEMA had been utilized by the Galyeston District to determine the
existe~ce of ditches and micro-depressions connecting the bulk of the wetlands on the Bayport
site with either Pine Gully, Galveston Bay or the Bayport Deepwater channel, all of which are
navigable waters.
241. Plaintiffs allege that overland flow into and through wetlands that enters
navigable waters provides a sufficient nexus between the purposes of the Clean Water Act and
the wetlands as to make those wetlands jurisdictional navigable waters subject to the permitting
requirements of ~ 404 of the Clean Water Act.
31.
e
e
242. Plaintiffs request Declaratory Relief whereby the Court declares that there is
sufficient nexus between these wetlands and the purposes of the Cle~ Water Act as to make the
significantly more wetland acreage on the Bayport site jurisdictional navigable waters than has
been recognized to date by the Corps.
243. Plaintiffs request that the Court remand this issue to the Corps to reconsider the
issue of the acreage of jurisdictional wetlands on the Bayport property .as well as requiring. that
. .
the Corps and USEP A work together to jointly establish the jurisdiction of the Corps over the
wetlands at the Bayport site.
244. Plaintiffs allege that the Corps has exhibited arbitrary and capricious action by
falling to re-examine the extent of the wetlands at the Bayport site in light of new topographic
\ .
. information and/or in light of the USEP A claim that micro-channels provide sufficient
connection to render much more acreage jurisdictional than has been determined by the Corps.
vu. STANDING
245. The City of Shoreacres is located between State Highways 146 and 501 at the
northwestern edge of Galveston Bay. Shoreacres is immediately north of the proposed Bayport
terminal. Shoreacres is predominantly residential with a population of approximately 1,488.
Shoreacres' residents will be directly. and severely impacted by the proposed Bayport Project.
These residents will be impacted by the additional noise, lights, traffic and air pollution. If the
proposed Bayport Project is built, their property values will decline. Shoreacres' zoning
ordinance reflects the community's values for a bayside~ residential community, which is at odds
with the proposed Bayport Project
246. The City of Taylor Lake Village is on Taylor Lake, west of the proposed Bayport
Project and has a population of approximately 3;694. The proposed Bayport Project will
32.
e
e
adversely affect Taylor Lake Village's residents. Air pollution as well as the additional noise
pollution and increased traffic will substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of their
property. The property values in Taylor Lake Village will also decline if the proposed Bayport
Project is built.
247. GBPCA is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to restore and enhance
Galveston Bay and its estuaries. In this regard, GBPCA monitors activities and proposed
activities, which impact the bay shore environment.and human community of Galveston Bay,
with the intent to modify and/or prevent activities that have an adverse environmental impact.
GBPCA's members use Galveston Bay and its estuarine systems-- including the area affected by
the actions complained of in this lawsuit-- for bird watching, boating, and general enjoyment of
the scenic environment. Mary Beth Maher is a member of GBCP A and lives in Shoreacres.
Ms. Maher enjoys boating on Galveston Bay and is an active volunteer with the new wetlands
park in Shoreacres. Both of these activities will be negatively impacted by the proposed Bayport
facility.
248. GHASP was formed in 1988 to protect the health of residents of the Houston-
Galveston area from air pollution, including ozone. GHASP's board. of directors, members,
consultants, outreach workers, and volunteers are primarily from the Houston-Galveston region
and will be affected by the elevated levels of ozone in the Houston-Galveston non-attainment
area caused by the proposed Bayport Project, as well as by other pollutants from the project such
as fine particulate matter. John Wilson is a member of GHASP. Mr. Wilson enjoys sailing on
Galveston Bay, which will be negatively impacted by the proposed Bayport facility.
249. TCONR was formed in 1971, and has approximately 1,000 members. TCONR's
purpose includes educating the public by collecting, studying and disseminating information on
33.
e
e
environmental problems; protecting native ecosystems; promoting efficient use of natural
resources; preserving native forests and other Texas habitat; and influencing public policies and
activities that impact the environment. The organization and each of its members has a strong
interest in preserving the integrity of the . environment in the Bayport area.
250. HAS is a chapter of the National Audubon Society, and subscribes to its mission
statement:
Houston Audubon Society promotes the conservation and appreciation of birds
and wildlife habitat.
The Bayport Project's proposed location includes extensive wetlands used by local and migratory
birds. HAS has a prime interest in preserving these wetlands and the birds that use this area.
The Great Texas Birding Trail follows Todville Road alongside the proposed terminal. HAS
sponsors many outdoor activities for the community such as bird watching classes and fieldtrips.
HAS members participate in these activities, and will be negatively impacted by the proposed
Bayport facility.
251. PISCES is an organization made up of commercial fishermen that was formed in
the 1970's. PISCES has an economic interest in the proposed B~yport Project. Their livelihood
depends on the natural reso~es that inhabit these waters. .The additional dredging that is
reasonably foreseeable for the Bayport and Houston Ship Channels will threaten the oysters and .
shrimp upon which PISCES's members depend. Richard Moore is a member of PISCES whose
livelihood will be negatively impacted by the proposed Bayport facility.
252. GRN is an organization comprised of members dedicated to the protection and
restoration of the resources of the Gulf of Mexico Region. One of GRN' s priorities is to protect
the wetlands located in the Gulf states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida).
Forty different organizations and forty-five individuals are members of GRN who participate in
34.
e
e
activities designed to further its goals. These members span the entire coast of the Gulf, from
Texas to Florida. GRN sponsors many events, workshops, and reports that focus on the
condition of the natural resources of the Gulf. The proposed Bayport Project will severely
impact wetland resources of the Gulf region. GBCP A is a member organization of GRN.
253. HYC is the oldest yacht club in Texas. Its mission is to advance the sport of
yachting. HYC organizes regattas and promotes Houston nationally for yacht racing and
recreational boating center. HYC mem~ers currently enjoy sailing in Qalveston Bay; however,
the addition of the proposed Bayport Project will substantially inteIfere with the HYC's mission
. and purpose. The additional water traffic, lights, noise, and air pollution will severely impact
Galveston Bay as a sailing and recreational venue. Charles Buchner is a member of the Houston
Yacht Club and was its commodore during 2001-2002. Mr. Buchner is active in sailing and
racing on Galveston Bay, which will be negatively impacted by the proposed Bayport facility.
254. GBF is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to preserve, protect and
enhance th~ natural resources of the Galveston Bay estuarine system and its tributaries for
present users and for posterity. GBF's members participate in and sponsor recreational activities,
educational programs, and research focused on the natural marine environment of Galveston
Bay. The proposed Bayport Project will destroy much of the natural environment, which serves
as a classroom and recreational location for Galveston -Bay Foundation events. Ellyn Roof is a
member of GBF and lives in Taylor Lake Village, Texas. Ms. Roof sails on Galveston Bay and
has skippered the GBF "Bay Ranger" on education trips on Galveston Bay. These activities will
be negatively impacted by the proposed Bayport facility. Additionally, Ms. Roofs property in
Taylor Lake Village will be negatively impacted by air pollution, noise pollution and increased
traffic and the property value of the home is expected to decline if this facility is constructed.
35.
e
e
255. Each of the negative impacts from the proposed Bayport facility on the plaintiffs
or the plaintiffs' properties would be redressed by a decision of this Court favorable to the
Plaintiffs. .
ym. RELIEF REQUESTED .
256. Plaintiffs request that an injunction be issued prohibiting the Defendants from
issuing a permit for the Bayport Project until a Supplemental Draft EIS is prepared" that
incorporates the changed conditions" and new information previously discussed, the public is
allowed to meaningfully comment, and the NEP A process properly followed.
257. Plaintiffs also request that an injunction be issued preventing Defendants from
using the Galveston District's Policy No. 01-001 that.overland sheet flow is not a sufficient
hydrologic connection, unless and until the rule-making procedures of the APA have "been
followed.
258. Plaintiffs also request that this Court declare that overland flow of surface waters
that connect wetlands with navigable waters is sufficient to make these wetlands jurisdictional
water of the United States under ~ 404 of the Clean Water Act.
259. Finally, PI8intiffs request that this Court remand the delineation of jurisdictional
wetlands to the Corps for further evaluation and direct that the extent of jurisdictional wetlands
at the proposed Bayport Project location be re-examined using the best available topographic
information as well as other factors deemed appropriate by the Court.
36.
e e
IX. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that upon a fmal trial
hereof, that a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction be issued as requested above, and
for other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves justly entitled,. including
attorneys fees.
Respectfully submitted,
MALONEY, MARTIN & MITCHELL, L.L.P.
by:
MICHAELJ.MALONEY
TBA No. 12883550.
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 826
3700 Two Houston Center
909 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 759-1600
(713) 759-6930 (facsimile)
OF COUNSEL:
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C.
James B. Blackburn, Jr.
TBA No. 02388500
Mary W. Carter
TBA No. 03926300
Richard R. Morrison, IV
TBA No. 00795027
2900 Weslayan, Suite 400
. Houston, Texas 77027
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax)
David A. Kahne
Texas Bar No. 00790129
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 17432
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID KAHNE
P.O. Box 66386
Houston, Texas 77266
(713) 652-3966
(713) 652-5773 (facsimile)
Counsellor Galveston Bay Conservation anti
Preservation Association
37.
e
e
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C~
by:
JAMES B. BLACKBURN, JR.
Attorney. in charge
TBA No. 02388500
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 7416
2900 Weslayan, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77027
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax)
OF COUNSEL:
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C.
Mary W. Carter
TBA No. 03926300 .
Richard R. Morrison, IV
TBA No. 00795027
2900 Weslayan, Suite 400
HoUston, Texas 77027
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax)
LOWERRE & KELLY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Richard Lowerre
TBA No. 12632900
P.O. Box 1167
Austin, Texas 78767-1167
(512) 482-9345
(512) 482-9346 (facsimile)
Counsel for The City of Taylor Lake Village, The
City of Shoreacres, Houston Audubon Society
(HAS), Gulf Restoration Network (GRN),
Galveston-Houston Association for Smog
Prevention (GHASP) and Texas Comm~ttee on
Natural Resources (TCONR)
38.
e
e
MALONEY, MARTIN & MITCHELL, L.L.P.
by:
MIKE MARTIN
TBA No. 13094400
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 8824
3700 Two Houston Center
909 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 759-1600
(713) 759-6930 (facsimile)
Counselfor Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF)
39.
e
e
MCFATRIDGE, BAKER & DEEN, P.C.
by:
THOMAS O. DEEN
Attorney in charge
TBA No. 05713780
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 20241
3900 Essex Lane, Suite 730
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 629-7966
(713) 629-7960 (facsimile).
by:
JAMES T. LISTON
TBA No. 12415325
1600 Smith, Suite 4545
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 653-5640
(713) 653-5656 (facsimile)
Counsel for Houston Yacht Club
40.
e
e
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD MORRISON
by:
RICHARD R. MORRISON, III
TBA No. 14528000
Southern District of Texas Bar No. 4648
1100 Hwy. 146, Suite A
Texas First Bank Bldg.
Kemah, Texas 77565
281-535-0455
281-535-0458 (fax)
OF COUNSEL:
BLACKBURN CARTER, P.C.
James B. Blackburn, Jr.
TBA No. 02388500
Mary W. Carter
TBA No. 03926300
Richard R. Morrison, IV
TBA No. 00795027
2900 Weslayan, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77027
713/524-1012
713/524-5165 (fax)
Counsel for Professionals Involved in Seafood
Concerned Enterprises (PISCES)
41.
e
e
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
THE CITY OF SHOREACRES, ET. AL. ~
Plaintiffs, ~
~
v. ~ ClVILACTIONNO
~
COLONEL LEONARD D. WATERWORTH, ~
DISTRICT ENGINEER, GAL VESTON ~
. DISTRICT - U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ~
ENG~ERS;ET.AL. ~
Defendants. ~
ORDER
CAME ON FOR CONSIDERATION, Plaintiffs, The City .of Shoreacres, et. al.
Original Complaint and Application for Declaratory Relief. After consideration of the. evidence
and pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that this request should be GRANTED; it is therefore
ORDERED that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Port of Houston' s
proposed. Bayport facility be reissued by the Galveston District of the U.S. Corps of Engineers as
a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement including full and fair analysis and
disclosure of (1) the impact of the issuance of the Shoal Point permit; (2) the consideration of
alternative sites. for cruise terminal apart .from container terminals. including specifically
Galveston and Pelican Island locations; (3) the impact of Harris County's recent study on the
Spilmans Island alternative; (4) the impact of the loss of land surface at the Baypprt site as
documented in the new LIDAR study by Harris County and FEMA, including reanalysis of
jurisdictional wetlands; (5) the impact of widening and deepening the Houston and Bayport
Channels to 50 or more feet of depth; (6) the increase in cancer risk to adjacent population from
exposure to diesel emissions; (7) the violation of the PM25 standard; (8) the violation of noise
standards; and (9) the violation of vibration standards; is it further
1.
e
e
ORDERED that Policy No. 01-001 of the Galveston District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is in violation of 5 U.S.C. ~ 553; it is further
ORDERED that the issue of jurisdictional wetlands is remanded to the Galveston
District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for reconsideration in light of new topographic
information.
Signed on this
day of
, 2003.
Judge Presiding
2.
. .
MEETING HANDOUTS
,.,
.'
e
e
~
July 8, 2003
Mr. Fred Anthamatten .
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Galveston District
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box .1229
Galveston, Texas 77553-1229
"Dear Mr. Anthamatten:
On behalf of the City of La Porte, please accept, record, and file this letter as the City of La Porte's
comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Bayport
Marine Terminal.
~
As expressed in earlier correspondence date~ January 10,2002 and August 30,2002, the City is
opposed to the Bayport Site, or any combination including Bayport, because we firmly believe the
FEIS reinforces our concerns that this site would have substantial long-term negative environmental
impacts for our community.
, The FEIS Executive SummFlry Table E-4 summarizes environmental consequences of alternate sites.
~'.In general, our review finds that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other(
I~~ '.sites in the categories of: -
fF Eaual to: . Favorable:
;;:; Land Use and Coastal Zone Management Surface Transportation
. Socio-economic Environment Community .1 nfrastructure , etc.
fJIf^-~ Social Impacts & Environmental Justice Cultural Resources
* Aesthetics and Light Shoreline Erosion
~ *Hydrology, Drainage, Floodplains
1- n rt'However, within environmental categories, especially those that affect existing residential areas, the
Bayport site displayed many negative environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate
sites. .
~ Noise Navigation Parks and Recreation
Jurisdictional Wetlands Air Quality Essential Fish Habitat
. Hazardous Materials Ecology Public Safety
. 5(1) \ 1\ "'~ (\
We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction, and infrastructure costs for the PHA does
not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities.
,
-"
e
e
Alternative Sites
Cl Other alternative sites have been identified within the Galveston Bay system for.locating this
terminal facility that are less environmentally damaging and that are more acceptable to the
City.
o In the ROD discussing the Shoal Point facility it was determined that the Shoal Point
site was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative site in the
Galveston Bay system for a container terminal facility.
o . The proposed Bayport site was evaluated by the Galveston Dist(ict in its Shoal Point
FEIS as one of the alternative sites for locating the Shoal Point container terminal
facility, by the Bayport f~cility was found to be more environmentally damaging and
was not selected.
o In the Bayport FEIS, there is no mention of the fact that the Shoal Point site had been
found to he the least environmentally damaging alternative" and had already been
selected for issuance of a Corps permit to construct a container terminal facility.
Cl Similarly, Spilmans Island is less damaging environmentally in the categories that impact
nearby residential areas.
Co-Location
Cl The Bayport FEIS, unlike the DEIS, the Galveston District states for the first time that it does
not consider cruise and container facilities to be functionally dependent.
Cl If these facilities are not functionally dependent, then they do not need to be co-located as
stated.
Cl This new recognition significantly affects the evaluation of alternatives by the applicant.
Spilmans Island
Cl PHA had determined. that developing Spilmans Island would be cost-prohibitive, due to its
being a spoil disposal site.
Cl Earlier this year, acting independently of the Port of Houston Authority, Harris County
commissioned a study of the cost of developing Spilmans Island.
Cl This study by Harris County, dated May 2003, concluded that the cost of development of
Spilmans Island was substantially lower than had been determined by the Port of Houston
Authority .
Cl The Galveston District has not considered this new study by Harris County in the DEIS or
FEIS for Bayport in evaluating Spilmans Island as an alternative site.
Cl This study by Harris County is new information that significantly affects the evaluation of
alternatives to the proposed Bayport site.
,.
'~
e
e
Air Pollution
[J The entire eight county region is being subjected to rules related to heavy construction
limitations, landscape and lawn mowing limitations m.d "eOii $",~d lin ,its'. Even though small
in their total effect, we've all been asked to share the load while this proposed activity is a
point source and a real impact borne by a few people.
[J It is our understanding that the modeling does not include vessel emission for both trips to and
from port and while vessels are in port (and currently not subject to state and federal
regulations ).
[J Emissions from railroad activity is not included (and currently not subject to state regulations).
[J The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a National Ambient Air Ouality
Standard (NMOS) for PM2.5, including both a 24-hour standard (65 micrograms per cubic .
meter) and an annual standard (15 micrograms per cubic meter).
[J As a result of the comments to the Bayport DEIS, the Galveston District included an analysis
of PM2.5 (fine particle) air pollution impacts that was released to the public for the first time
when the Bayport FE IS was released on May 16, 2003.
[J In the Executive Summary of the Bayport FEIS, the Galveston District for the first time states
that, in the year 2010, the 24-hour national ambient air quality standard ("NMOS") for PM2.5
will be viol~ted.
[J After years of evaluating this proposed Bayport Project, people living near this Bayport location
have now been told, for the first time in the FEIS, that Federal air quality standards for this
pollutant could be violated by the Bayport Project in the year 2010.
Noise Pollution (~umber 4, Port of Houstol1l'Osition-paper}-.
[J The DEIS notes that construction n.oise alone during the nighttime would exceed 55 dBA
(decibels, A-weighted sound level) at the nearest residences for dredging, and the nighttime
pile construction would exceed 55 dBA at the nearest residences. Operation sound levels at
the residences north of the Channel would increase 16 to 22 dBA and exceed 65 Dba Ldn.
Two of the alternate sites listed would not increase noise pollution or disturb area residents.
[J The Bayport FEIS now presents a new analysis of the noise impacts of the proposed Bayport
Project on adjacent neighborhoods. The new analysis reveals significant noise impacts will
occur to nearby residential neighborhoods from the Bayport Project as proposed by PHA.
[J The Bayport FEIS state that sound levels may increase in the EI Jardin areas by over 5 dBA
from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and in other nearby areas by over 10 dBA during the same time.
o According to the USEPA, noise increases by more than 10 dBA are potentially
startling or sleep disturbing.
[J The Bayport FEIS also concludes that residential property values will decline because of
these significant noise impacts.
[J The Bayport DE IS failed to address the potential impacts to nearby residential communities
due to vibrations caused by construction and operation of the Bayport Project.
.~
'\
e
e
[J The Bayport FEIS ~~e hat sg.uno levels may increase in the EI Jardin areas by over 5 dBA
from 10 p.m. tor.m. angAn oth~r n~~as by ~r",\O dBA dur~e same ~e.
o AccoJliing to t e-tfSEPA, n'mse increas~'f more ~ffA arelmter-rtially
staFt1ing or sleep disturbing.
[J The B~1port F~~5~cludes that residential prgpe~~1I ~-b~
these ~i~ant noise impact~~
[J The Ba~ort DEIS failed to address th;;wt~t~tiaLcommtfAit~es
due to vib~~on and operation of the Bayport Project.
[J The Bayport FEIS now includes a new section containing a discussion and analysis of
vibration impacts.
[J The Bayport FEIS now states that ship maneuvering may occasionally cause noise-induced
vibration at residential structures up to 4,600 feet from the Bayport Ship Channel, the effects
of which would be perceived as window rattling or wall vibration.
[J The Bayport FEIS now concludes that this noise-induced vibration impact caused by the
operations of the proposed Bayport Project is long-term and considered potentially significant
depending on the design, condition and orientation of each residential structure.
o Residences located in Shady Oaks and Bay Colony subdivisions to the north, the EI
Jardin and Surf Oaks subdivisions to the south, and the subdivisions of the City of
Taylor Lake Village to the west are all within the range of this potentially significant
noise-induced vibration impact.
[J It has been estimated that over 5,000 people living within one mile of the proposed Bayport
facility.
[J Prior to the release of the FEIS these residents were not aware that a significant vibrations
impact could occur in their neighborhood.
Shippina
Q The permit application continues to be silent on the impact of deepening the channel from 45
feet to 50 feet even though the Bayport wharves are being designed for a 56-foot depth. We
believe it is better to understand the incremental change from 45 feet to 50 feet today rather
than hear the Port has decided to seek a permit for a 50-foot channel within the next five
years.
[J In the FE IS response to comments, the Corps states that it decided to exclude consideration
of a 50-foot channel based upon the overriding fact that such a project has not been
authorized. (FEIS, p. 453, Response to Comment 35-2).
[J In the FEIS response to comments, the Corps further states that in a regulatory EIS, the Corps
only reviews the project as proposed by the applicant and the PHA has not proposed to widen
or deepen the Houston Ship Channel or the Bayport channel. (p. 10, response to comment 1-
47).
[J The Bayport FEIS now includes a diagram where wharf cranes proposed for construction at
the Bayport site are specifically labeled as being designed to unload post-Panamax vessels.
(Figure 5, Appendix 1.1 containing the PHA permit application).
./
.~
,
.
e
e
o The Bayport FEIS now states that, when fully loaded, Post-Panamax vessels require channel
depths between 45 to 53 feet.
o . This new information regarding the required channel depths for fully loaded Post-Panamax
vessels explains the necessity for the future widening and deepening of the Houston Ship
Channel and its connecting channels to at least 50 feet.
o The Corps has continued to state that deepening of the Houston Ship Channel and its
connecting channels would likely be necessary in the future.
o It is apparent that the intent of the Bayport facility is to serve Post-Panamax vessels, which,
when fully loaded, are larger than can be accommodated at the current time by either the
Bayport or Houston Ship Channels, yet the impacts from the deepening of the channels have
never been analyzed in an environmental full disclosure document.
It is for these reasons that we urge the ACOE to recognize the damaging effects of the Bayport site.
As we unders~nd it, the ACOE has limited ~~,tions in acting on. this application. It is our desire to
encourage an, alternate site for the propos~acility and thus deny the Bayport Application.
However, if the ACOE issues a permit for the Bayport site, we respectfully request that specific
conditions regarding the following issues be part of the permit.
Noise: The FEIS evaluates the noise impact to the closest residences as potentially significant and
suggests increasing the height of the 20-foot sound barrier to 30 feet. We request that further
analysis comparing the proposed wall to other alternatives such as soundproofing nearby residences.
This alternative may be more appealing than loss of breeze and view.
Airshed Pollutant Loadina: Based on the applicants commitment to USACE, conformity emissions
were estimated at 24.9 tpy (thence hold 25 tpy). Place restrictions necessary to see this commitment
is met (ES-30). ~ j;n.~ ~ Mt)(\'\~{ S
The 2010 air quality impact related to the project could include a significant adverse impact for the
short term (PM2.5 impacts related to fugitive dust). Place necessary restrictions to insure mitigation
of the short-term impact be mitigated by additional control of fugitive dust from construction. (ES-32)
Surface Transportation: Port operations not to begin prior to completion. of SH146 from Fairmont
Parkway to , including .entry and exit ramps to Bayport at Port Road proposed overpass
to be completed overUPRR and port.. ~tairmont PaFltway.. ~
BliahtlCorporate Neiahbor
Sincerely,
....
~".~'::
~ a~
e
e
ASKINS & ARMSTRONG. P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
702 W. FAIRMONT PARKWAY
P.O. BOX 121B
LA PORTE. TEXAS 77572-1218
KNOX W. ASKINS
.JOHN D. ARMSTRONG
CLARK T. ASKINS
TELEPHONE 2BI 471-1886
TELECOPIER 281 471-2047
KWASKINS@AOL,COM
.lOHN-A@SWBELL.NET
CTASKINS@SWBELL.NET
July 7, 2003
~. Mayor & City
City of La Porte
City Hall
La Porte, Texas
Council
Ms. Debra Brooks
City Manager
City of La Porte
City Hall
La Porte, Texas
Feazelle
Mr. John Joerns
Assistant City Manager
City of La Porte
City Hall
La Porte, Texas
Dear Folks:
Mr. Jim Blackburn, who is the lead attorney on the federal court
lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contesting its
findings on the Bayport project, came by my office on Monday, July
7, 2003, to discuss the lawsuit, and to enlist the possible
participation of the City of La Porte as an additional plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed on June 24, 2003, in Federal District Court
in Galveston. The Judge of that Court immediately transferred it
to the Federal District Court in Houston. It was assigned to Judge
Lee Rosenthal.
Mr. Blackburn advised that the extended comment period to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers closes on July 16, 2003. The Corps of
Engineers then must make its final decision within the time frame
of August 15, 2003, to September 1, 2003.
The lawsuit, in which the City of Shoreacres and the City of Taylor
Lake Village, are joined by eight non-profit organizations, as
plaintiffs, alleges irregularities in the Corps of Engineers review
process, and asks the Court to invalidate any permit, and to issue
a permanent injunction against issuance of the permit. Mr.
Blackburn anticipates that the Port of Houston Authority will
intervene as a party defendant in the litigation.
1.--' ~-
J ~
. .
e
AANS & ARMSTRONG. P. C.
.. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Hon. Mayor & City Council, Et Al
July 7, 2003
Page 2
I asked Mr. Blackburn on what terms and conditions the two cities
were participating in the litigation. He stated that there were no
formal employment agreements between the cities and his law firm,
and that each city council had simply passed a resolution
authorizing the law firm to represent them in the litigation,
without any obligation to pay legal fees or expenses on the
litigation. He indicated that. the City of La PQrte could
participate on the same basis, although it.s financial support would
be appreciated.
Apparently, principal funding for the lawsuit is being obtained
through fundraisers by the Galveston Bay Conservation and
Preservation Association.
Mr. Blackburn stated that the City of Seabrook will probably J01n
as an additional plaintiff in the lawsuit, and may contribute
financially to the lawsuit. He stated that he was attempting to
set up a meeting with officials of the City of Pasadena to enlist
their participation in the litigation.
The litigation has adequate plaintiffs to present the various legal
arguments, and. the inclusion of additional plaintiffs is not
necessary from a strictly legal standpoint. However, Mr. Blackburn
would like to have additional cities included as plaintiffs, to
show their support for the litigation.
The issue of whether the city of La Porte should participate in
this litigation as a plaintiff, is a policy decision, to be
considered by the City Council Bayport Committee initially, which
would then make a recommendation to the full city Council.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
(%::;;;L
Knox W. Askins
city Attorney
City of La Porte
KWA: sw
-
e
Summary ofS& ME, Inc.'s Spilman's Island Stabilization Study dated May 16,2003
Conducted for Harris County Infrastructure Department
1. The cost conclusions can be summarized as follows:
. The study produces a range of cost per acre to stabilize Spilman's Island of $149,000 to
$242,000. The higher costs are for shorter surcharge times (one year rather than two
years) and heavier design loadings (1000 psfvs 835 pst).
. The average cost per acre for the four cases that allow two years for stabilization is about
$164,000. The average cost per acre for the four cases that allow only one year for
stabilization is about $200,000
. The latest Port of Houston estimate assumes $258,750 per acre to stabilize Spilman's
Island, allowing up to two years for stabilization. The Port's estimate is 58% higher than
the average of the S&ME estimates.
. The Port's estimate for quicker stabilization (four to six months) is $450,000 per acre,
more than double S& ME's estimate for a one-year stabilization.
. ,The cost figures produced by the S&ME study and the Port for the two-year stabilization
c~ses are based on the same basic technique for stabilization (surcharge and wick drains).
Th~\ame geotechnical data were available to the both groups.
2. The S&~tudY states that it consistent1( adopts conservative assumptions that result in
higher end cost estimates. Mid-range, or 501 percentile, assumptions would reduce the cost
estimates. Specific examples of these assumptions include:
. Assumes that 1996 elevations are still applicable. If existing grade is now higher (as they
believe is likely due to the addition of additional spoil), surcharge requirements and
hence costs will be lower.
. Did not consider potential benefits of sand layers encountered in some borings (which
would reduce amount of settlement, decrease time to consolidate, and reduce cost).
. Assumes that entire site is developed at once, which increases costs because surcharge
materials cannot be used repeatedly by moving it from section to section. (POH proposes
to develop container terminal in phases; therefore, there is no reason that the entire island
should all be stabilized at once.)
. Assigns no salvage value to surcharge fill, even though excess fill may be sold.
. Assumes that fill will cost $5.50 Icy, although costs from TxDOT for similar sized fill
projects range up to only $5.00/cy with around $3.00/cy as the most common value. The
study includes cost estimates for a range offill costs. At $3.00/cy, the S&ME range for a
two-year stabilization is $llO,OOO/acre to $130,000/acre, with an average of$120,000.
The Port's estimate per acre is 116% higher.
3. Other interesting comments from the S&ME study:
. "Overall, the subsurface conditions across Spilman's Island appear to be in line with or
slightly better than conditions we have encountered at other major terminal sites of
similar history (i.e., old dredge disposal areas)...".
e
e
. "Our analyses indicate that site preparation costs for a Spilmans Island container terminal
should be less than those we have calculated for these other major terminal sites,
particularly if a lower fill rate can be reasonably justified."
. "The costs of wharf pilings have been estimated [by the Port of Houston's study] to be
$27 million higher for the Spilmans Island site. We understand that this figure is based
on the assumption that the drilled piers that will make up the tangent pier wall at the front
of the Spilmans Island wharf will have to be 40 ft longer. This may certainly be true,
however, we suspect that for conditions such as those at Spilmans Island, there may be
more economical alternatives than a tangent pier wall wharf structure (e.g., an open wharf
with a containment bund)."
-..
Message
Page 1 of 1
e
e
Harris, Sharon
From: Laurence W. Tobin [Iwtobin@galvestonbay.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:47 PM
To: Harris, Sharon
Subject: PHA Feb 2003 Analysis of Spillman's by Lockwood,
Analysis of Spillman's on Feb. 2003 by Lockwood Andrews
This is a revision of previous data. I will scan the S&ME report to Harris County Infrastructure
this evening. You will have a PDF in the morning.
7/8/2003
e
e
Port of Houston Authority Proposed Terminal Complex
A Comparative Analysis
Between the
Spilmans Island and Bayport Sites
Prepared by:
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.
.." ".'''..
-~...".,. bYY"
_~ \"-\~" I. .~;'-:\h
,,:'':J'.'. * ;Y!~ ..
#'I 1; " .. ."t,
f '* :" ". * ~
~.......................~
~ E. TYSON THOMAS ic!
~~...................:. II ~
,..;.-" 51916 . ,Q::p
t c'. .',: '.'"
~ .~~'. . ,,~,p
t~".f'" .~c(1/~ ~(~ .
~, . """
L , .:. ~L 'i;,.'\,;,,."
z.. ..., j~ ~
"",:-),..,..
" 2,.$"10.3
February 2003
~'lo."\.'\.'\:\.'\\'\l."
~<~ OF Ti'o"tt
oS~. ~;-'*'''''..'.'::..r..., lzt
1Wt";""~."" #,.,.tt 'I.
Ilk-ol.. IJ'~U' 13
"1(, '. 11.... ~ .
,..;. ...i.:;.....{~..'....,{~... . .~~I
'':.' S""-""JE" i: ~II "R::' ''it.j !;.I-
~ ~. If:l'r: J.I., l:~l,;j ~:J",.11 r
'0.......~.. ~"'.".(~~" 0,...1 r ,...,< -"".-J.........,~
'tl.~...... ,'".'.. /i/fi
II OA'; "f/c-ENS~t;?/ .1:.. .IF
III '::-.r.1' ........... ~\<;-:,." .....
qtl\{O~^\. :-%~:,
"~~O."
-/_.. ,
e
e
Port of Houston Authority:
Proposed Container and Cruise Terminal Complex
A Comparative Analysis between the Spilmans Island and Bayport Sites
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Executive Summary.. ................. ................ ............................ .................... ............ ........
2.0 Analysis Report.. ............ .................... ................. .......... ........................... ...... ................ I
2.1 Purpose... ....... .......... .................................. ................................................................ I
2.2 Overview............... ........................... ......... ......... .................;...... .... .... ........................ 1
2.3 Comparison of Similar Development Features......................................................... 1
2.4 Major Development Components Required for the Spilmans Island Terminal....... 4
2.5 Additional Costs for Spilmans Island TerminaL..................................................... 5
2.6 Schedule Impacts. ................................. .................................................................... 7
2.7 Summary.............. ................................ ................. .................................................... 8
Tables and Exhibits
Table I - Comparison of Common Development Features
Table 2 - Additional Costs for Developing Spilmans Island Terminal
Table 3 - Detailed Summary Cost Estimate
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Aerial Photo
Exhibit 3 - Proposed Bayport Terminal Site
Exhibit 4 - Proposed Spilmans Island Terminal Site
e
e
1.0 Executive Summary
The Port of Houston Authority (pHA) requested that Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. prepare a
comparative analysis between two proposed locations for a new container and passenger cruise
terminal facility. The first site, proposed by the PHA and referred to as Bayport, is an undeveloped
area along the existing Bayport Ship Channel. At full development, Bayport will encompass 1,043
acres and include seven container berths, three cruise berths, and all support facilities. The other site
considered in this analysis is Spilmans Island. Spilmans Island is currently a federally authorized
dredged material placement area for the Houston Ship Channel and is located along the existing
Barbours Cut Channel. At full development, Spilmans Island would cover 810 acres and have the
same number of berths as Bayport, but with less capacity for onsite support facilities and less
potential for onsite business opportunities.
The analysis provides conceptual planning level cost estimates for the major construction
components at both sites. Estimated costs are presented in two categories: 1) comparison of similar
development features, and 2) additional costs for developing the Spilmans Island site that would not
be required at Bayport.
Similar development features, which have relative cost differences include roadway improvements,
rail access, utility relocations, dredging, land acquisition, and required mitigation measures. The cost
analysis indicates that for similar development features, Spilmans Island would cost $319,991,000
compared to $297,987,000 for Bayport. Roadway improvements and rail access would be less
expensive at Spilmans Island than at Bayport. However, Spilmans Island would be $22,004,000
more expensive overall for similar features due to the need for a cruise terminal parking garage, more
off site dredge disposal, and more extensive pipeline relocations than Bayport.
Although Spilmans Island is smaller than Bayport, development of the site would incur additional
project costs, such as an off site empty container storage facility, development of an offsite dredged
material placement area to replace Spilmans Island, additional shoreline protection, wharf structure
enhancements, and specialized soil stabilization of the existing site. The total estimated incremental
cost for features that would only be required at Spilmans Island is $314,804,000.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Bayport is scheduled for completion in April 2003.
The PHA will also complete the designs for the first phase of Bayport in April 2003 with
construction scheduled to begin August 2003. Bayport is planned to begin operation in 2005.
Spilmans Island, if pursued, would require a new permit and amendment of the existing Project
Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for the Houston-Galveston Ship Channels. The estimated time line
for acquiring a new permit would be three to five years, and amending the PCA may take one to two
years. Spilmans Island would also have to undergo master planning, engineering design, and site
stabilization. The most optimistic estimate for the opening of the Spilmans Island terminal is the
year 2012.
In summary, the cost comparison of similar development costs for both facilities, and those unique to
Spilmans Island, results in a net increased cost to build a terminal at Spilmans Island of
$336,808,000. Building the terminal at Spilmans Island will delay the opening of a new container
and cruise facility until 2012, compared to Bayport's scheduled opening in 2005.
1
e
e
2.0 Port of Houston Authority:
Proposed Container and Cruise Terminal Complex
A Comparative Analysis between the Spilmans Island and Bayport Sites
2.1 Purpose
The following report provides a comparative cost analysis of constructing a new container and
passenger cruise terminal facility at the proposed Bayport Terminal Complex and an alternate
site, Spilmans Island (see Exhibits 1 and 2). . The analysis compares the cost estimates for
construction features at both sites .as presented in the November 19, 2002 report titled "Bayport
versus Spilman's Island: A Cost Comparison" by Nancy Edmonson. In addition, this analysis
identifies costs for items at Spilmans Island that neither the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement nor Edmonson's report have previously addressed.
This report provides a conceptual planning level estimate based on stated assumptions. The cost
analysis assesses the major construction components at both sites. All estimates provided are
potential, conceptual planning level costs, which would be refined in a more detailed engineering
design phase. All estimates represent total costs including engineering design and construction
expenses. Where necessary, LAN updated Edmonson's estimates to incorporate the most current
Bayport cost data.
2.2 Overview
The Bayport Container and Cruise Terminal Complex (Bayport) will encompass 1,043-acres of
currently undeveloped property located south of the existing Bayport Ship Channel. The
Bayport Ship Channel links the site to Galveston Bay and the Houston Ship Channel with a draft
of -40 feet Mean Low Tide (ML T). At full development, the site will include seven container
berths, backland facilities, three cruise terminals, co-development areas, an intermodal rail yard
and storage facility (see Exhibit 3). The design of the master plan for Bayport was developed to
accommodate projected growth in container shipping and passenger cruise business while
reducing secondary land use outside the port complex and minimizing adverse impacts to the
environment and surrounding communities.
Opponents to Bayport have proposed that the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) consider
developing a site at Spilmans Island to accommodate similar facilities (see Exhibit 4). The
island is an undeveloped area located along.the Barbours Cut Channel linking it to the Houston
Ship Channel, and is currently a federally authorized dredged material placement area.
Historically, Spilmans Island was a placement area for maintenance dredged material from both
the Houston Ship Channel and Barbours Cut Channel. Over time, the island height and footprint
expanded as maintenance dredged material was added to the site.
2.3 Comparison of Similar Development Features
In comparing the costs to develop a terminal, many similar features are required regardless of the
site location. For example, it was assumed that cruise terminals and amenities buildings as well
as buildings for administrative, maintenance and repair, and support personnel and functions
would be necessary to operate either facility. Other infrastructure features required to develop
these sites that are similar but may differ in cost include site utilities, roads, and rail. This
section compares items that are required at each site, but have comparable cost difference.
Page I
e
e
. Land Acquisition - The PHA already owns or has possession of the land required for the
Bayport terminal. These properties include Fairgrounds, Red Bluff Site (Memorial Tract),
Seureau, and American Acryl. Assuming the PHA could sell these properties at their
appraised values, the land costs for Bayport total $7,404,000.
The PHA also owns Spilmans Island, but additional land for roadway improvements to widen
Barbours Cut Blvd. to six lanes and North Broadway Street to four lanes is required. Also, a
separately located upland placement area is required to offset the use of Spilmans Island at an
estimated $10,000 per acre. Overall, new land acquisitions for Spilmans Island would cost
an estimated $8,155,000.
. Wetland and Bav Bottom Mitigation/Beneficial Use Area - Bayport will fill an estimated 2.2
acres of bay bottom. To offset wetlai1d impacts and the loss of bay bottom at Bayport, and
beneficially use dredged material, construction of a 200-acre beneficial use marsh will be
required at an estimated cost of $4,000,000. Based on the amount of bay bottom and wetland
acreage impacted at Bayport, not all of this 200-acre site should be considered as mitigation.
The Spilmans Island Terminal would fill an estimated 30.3 acres of bay bottom based on the
footprint presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Assuming a 3: 1
mitigation ratio for lost bay bottom, 90.9 acres of marsh would have to be created at an
estimated cost of $1,817,000. This cost does not include any additional mitigation for
- wetlands on Spilmans Island or any additional beneficial use areas, if required.
. Additional Mitigation Reauired at Bavoort - The Bayport Terminal plan includes the
following additional items to reduce or mitigate impacts associated with development and
operation of the facility.
A 20-foot high earthen berm featuring would be constructed using dredged material
planted with specific types of vegetation for use as habitat and to isolate the terminal
f~ility from the community. The estimated cost, including construction and
vegetation, is $17,000,000.
A 20-foot high noise wall is planned for the shoreline north of the Bayport Ship
Channel to reduce noise impact from terminal operations on the surrounding.
subdivisions. The cost estimate is $5,446,000.
Noise dampening spreader bars would reduce operational noises associated with the
mechanical handling of containers at a.cost of $336,000.
Wetland and coastal prairie enhancement and wetland creation would be
performed at the Memorial Tract ~ocation would cost $1,100,000.
The total estimated cost of these additional mitigation features at Bayport is $23,882,000.
. Roadwav Improvements - At Bayport, the majority of aU cruise and container terminal
traffic will enter the facility from southbound SH-146 and exit by traveling northbound on
SH-146. To aid cruise traffic flow in the area, two single-lane flyovers to and from SH-146
and a four-lane roadway to the cruise terminal from the flyovers will be constructed. Bayport
container terminal traffic will use a double-lane southbound flyover and a single-lane
northbound flyover to and from SH-146 to Port Road. To aid container terminal traffic, a
Page 2
e
e
separate double-lane flyover from SH-146 into the check-in gate south of Port Road will be
provided. Port Road will also be widened from two lanes to a maximum of six lanes with a
five-lane overpass crossing the main entrance to the container yard from the second stage
check-in gate. There are also four grade separations along the lead and industry railroad
tracks. The cost for roadway improvements at Bayport is $99,127,000.
For the Spilmans Island Complex, the analysis uses the same determinations (as Bayport) for
the inbound and outbound traffic for both cruise and container terminal traffic. Cruise
terminal traffic would similarly require two single-lane flyovers to and from SH-146 and a
four-lane roadway involving the extension of L Street north towards SH-146. Access for
container terminal traffic would be provided by replacing the current two-lane North
Broadway Street with a four-lane roadway and widening Barbours Cut Blvd from four to six
lanes. Container terminal traffic will also be provided with two double-lane flyovers to and
from SH-146 for the additional traffic demands placed on the SH-146 / Barbours Cut Blvd
intersection. The cost for roadway improvements at Spilmans Island would total
$37,874,000.
. Rail Access - Rail traffic at Bayport would utilize a new double-tracked mainline from the
Strang Yard to the new industry track into the intermodal yard. The total estimated cost of
rail for the Bayport Terminal is $95,013,000, of which $60,947,000 is for the intermodal yard
(Note: Ms. Edmonson's stated cost for the intermodal track was updated to match the full
build out cost of the intermodal yard based on the HGACffIP estimate). For the Spilmans
Island alternative, rail traffic would use the existing Barbours Cut double-track via a short
single-track from the Spilmans intermodal yard. Rail facilities at Spilmans Island would cost
$61,408,000, again where $60,947,000 of this is for intermodal yard rail.
. Pipeline Relocations - Bayport will require the relocation of five existing pipelines that run
parallel to Port Road. This relocation will coincide with the relocation of Port Road. The
estimated cost for land conveyance, design, and construction to relocate the pipelines at
Bayport is $7,940,000.
Development at Spilmans Island would require the relocation of approximately 17 lines at an
estimated cost of $51,000,000. This cost includes relocating the existing pipelines that cross
the island at various locations into defined corridors adjacent to the island.
. Onsite Fill- Bayport is planned to have 3.7 million cubic yards of dredged material used as
onsite fill with an estimated placement cost of $21,252,000. The Spilmans Island terminal
would require an estimated 7.0 million cubic yards of new site fill at a total cost of
$40,250,000. These cost estimates account for dredging, onsite placement, and management
of the fill. The onsite fill costs do not include stabilization of the existing soil where fill will
be placed, which is a requirement at Spilmans Island.
. Offsite Dredging Placement - For the Bayport Terminal, an estimated 4.1 million cubic yards
of dredged material will be placed off site into Placement Cells 14 and 15. The estimated
placement cost is $25,556,000.
Page 3
e
e
SpilInans Island would require that 15.0 million cubic yards of material be placed off site at
two locations: a new upland site and a proposed 90.9 acre mitigation site for Spilmans Island
at an estimated cost of $77,625,000 (See Additional Costs for Spilmans Island Terminal -
Development of a New Offsite Dredged Material Placement Area).
. Cruise Terminal Parkin!! Garage - Bayport has 58.0 acres available for parking, which is the
area required for surface parking to meet the projected cruise traffic. Due to the limited
space available at Spilmans Island, specifically in the areas designated for the cruise
terminals, a parking garage would be required to compensate for the loss of 33.0 acres of
surface parking. Cruise terminal parking at Bayport is estimated to cost $7,748,000 while
parking at Spilmans Island is estimated to cost $41,862,000, which includes $38,021,000 for
a two story parking garage and $3,841,000 for surface parking. Construction of a parking
garage will not be required at Bayport .
. Stormwater Ponds and Outfalls - Bayport will require ponds for stormwater detention south
of Port Road to prevent flooding and include outfalls into Pine Gully at a total estimated cost
of$1,251,000. For the area north of Port Road, detention is not required and stormwater can
outfall directly to the bay. Similarly, because of its location, Spilmans Island does not have
detention requirements and can outfall to the bay.
. Clearing and Grubbing - Bayport will require clearing and grubbing 1,043 acres of existing
trees and vegetation at a cost of $4,814,000. No cost for clearing and grubbing was included
for Spilmans Island as the site is an active dredged placement area with minimal vegetation.
2.4 Major Development Components Required for the Spilmans Island Terminal
The proposed alternative terminal at Spilmans "Island as presented in the DEIS would cover 810
acres, including 30.3 acres of new land constructed by filling bay bottom. Since the amount of
available acreage at Spilmans Island is less than at Bayport, not all of the same development
opportunities would be available.
A land use plan for a terminal at Spilmans Island was developed, and includes the same available
onsite acreage as the following components at the Bayport site:
. Wharves
. Intermodal Yard Rail
. Container Yard Operations
. Gate Complex
. Buildings (Administrative, M&R, CFS, etc.)
. Cruise Terminals (except for adequate surface parking)
. Circulation Roads
. Warehouses
. First Flush Retention Ponds
The following components are included within the Bayport Complex, but could not be
accommodated at Spilmans Island or have a reduction in capacity due to acreage limitations:
Page 4
e
e
. Cruise Terminal Co-Development
. Industrial Co-Development
. Adequate Onsite Empty Container Storage (reduced capacity)
. Cruise Terminal Surface Parking (reduced capacity)
The lack of available acreage to develop cruise and industrial co-development areas at Spilmans
Island represents lost business opportunities for the PHA. In addition, the lack of available
acreage at Spilmans Island creates the need for a secondary offsite empty container storage area.
This adds additional cost to developing and operating an offsite storage area for the Spilmans
Island terminal. This cost would not be incurred in developing the Bayport facility, which has
planned capacity for empty container storage onsite. The lack of adequate surface parking for
the cruise facility creates the need for a parking garage or shuttle service with offsite parking.
2.5 Additional Costs for Spilmans Island Terminal
Spilmans Island is currently a dredged material placement area that would require additional
costs to develop the proposed facilities. In addition to onsite development issues, a new dredged
material placement area must be constructed to offset the loss of the Spilmans Island site.
. Development of a New Off site Dredged Material Placement Area - Construction of a
terminal at Spilmans Island would require the development of a new upland placement site
for maintenance dredged material. Pumping the maintenance material to the upland site
would result in a longer pumping distance .and a correspondingly higher incremental cost of
$1.1 S per cubic yard. This cost assumes pumping from the Houston Ship Channel to an
upland site near Cedar Point. Over a 50-year span, an estimated 33.3 million cubic yards of
maintenance dredging is planned to be placed in Spilmans Island. If a container terminal
were constructed at Spilmans Island, this would result in a net increase in dredge pumping
cost of $38,295,000.
. Building the turning basin and wharves at Spilmans Island would generate 22.0 million cubic
yards of dredged material compared to 7.8 million cubic yards at Bayport. Of the 22.0
million cubic yards dredged for Spilmans Island, 7.0 million cubic yards are proposed for
onsite placement, while the remaining 15.0 million cubic yards are to be placed off site, at a
total cost of $5.18 per cubic yard, or $77,625,000. Additionally, the PHA would have to
purchase a new undeveloped site with a minimum of 685 acres to be converted into an
upland placement site. The incremental cost to build containment levees and water control .
structures at the new dredged material placement area is $16,487,000. This amount accounts
for costs above what would be required to raise the levees at Spilmans Island. A land cost of
$10,000 per acre, based on property similar to an area near Cedar Point, was used. This cost
is included in the land acquisition total presented earlier. No mitigation costs required to
develop the new upland site were included, although these costs are highly likely, and would
be identified once a specific site were selected.
As an alternative, the creation of a beneficial use marsh was also considered. Based on the
projected volume of material to be placed, a new beneficial use area would occupy 2,571
. acres of existing bay bottom at more than twice the cost of an upland site. It should also be
noted that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel - Final Supplemental Environment
Page 5
e
e
Impact Statement, states that for the Upper Houston Ship Channel, "maintenance dredged
material must always be placed in upland confined disposal cells". Therefore, the cost
estimate for Spilmans Island includes development of a new upland placement .site.
. Relocation of Existing High Voltage Electrical Lines - Developing the Spilmans Island site
would require relocation of two existing sets of high voltage electrical towers that currently
cross the site. The estimated cost to remove the 16 existing towers and install 26 new towers
and cable around the northern perimeter of the island is $10,830,000.
. Shoreline Armoring of Backlands - Unlike Bayport, the container yard backlands at
Spilmans Island would be exposed to the bay and require shoreline armoring to prevent
undermining the terminal. A proposed shoreline stabilization system using concrete mats
over approximately 20,000 linear feet of exposed waterfront would cost approximately
$3,571,000. .
. Additional Deepening of Wharf Piles Due to Soil Conditions - The wharf structures at
Bayport will require deep foundation systems to support heavy structures and equipment. It
was estimated by HVJ Associates, Inc. (HVJ) that the foundation cost for Spilmans Island
will increase over Bayport because support structures must be installed in greater numbers, to
deeper depths, and/or in larger sizes in order to sustain the loads. Although Bayport does
require deep foundations, there is an incremental cost increase for Spilmans Island to
accommodate its weaker soil conditions.
HVJ presented this incremental cost as additional length of foundation shafts that would be
required to support the structures due to the weaker soil conditions. First,. 20 additional f~et
of foundation shaft length would be needed due to the presence of the very soft material at
the surface. Next, an additional 20 feet would be necessary to allow for the effect of weaker
soils below the very soft clay. Therefore, it is estimated that the wharf shafts would need to
be 40 feet longer on average than at the Bayport site. A drilled shaft tangent pier wall system
is proposed for the container wharf at Spilmans Island, similar to Bayport. However, there
would be an additional cos~ to strengthen the pile system at the Spilmans site. The
incremental cost to construct the container wharf at Spilmans Island is $27,158,000 more
than at Bayport due to the need to build up the pile system using deeper and/or wider piles.
. Soil Preparation/Stabilization.- The existing soil at Spil:mans Island will require substantial
stabilization in order to handle the specialized heavy loading conditions of a container
terminal. HVJ estimates that the soil at Spilmans Island has only 25% of the strength of
natural soil in the region and currently requires specialized stabilization of onsite gravel
roads to allow vehicular traffic. HVJ prepared an independent analysis and cost estimates to
stabilize the Spilmans Island site for use as a container terminal. HVJ described two methods
for stabilizing the Spilmans site, both of which have considerable cost and scheduling issues:
Deep Soil Mixing
HVJ estimates that it would cost about $450,000 per acre to treat the soil by deep
soil mixing with cement to a depth of 20 feet, and to add 18 inches of imported
crushed stone with geotextile reinforcement. This would form a subgrade suitable
Page 6
e
e
. for installation of the paving system for backlands or access roads, or for a base to
construct railroad ballast. It is estimated that soil improvement by deep soil mixing
could be accomplished in about four to six months for the first phase of
development.
Surcharge and Wick Drains
HVJ estimates that it would cost about $225,000 per acre to treat the soil by
preloading. This assumes that a surcharge. load about 20 feet high would be needed
to produce adequate shear strength in the soil. Approximately 32,000 cubic yards of
fill per acre would be needed to construct the surcharge. It is assumed that fill for
the surcharge would be obtained on-site. Therefore, the area that could be treated
would be limited by the volume of fill available to use as surcharge. The preloading
process is estimated to span 18 to 24 months, and would cause approximately seven
feet of overall site settlement. This settlement would be partially compensated by
placement of an imported sand blanket required for drainage 'of water and the
addition of 18 inches of imported crushed stone with geotextile reinforcement.
However, approximately four to five feet of net settlement would occur during
preloading.
Assuming the least cost approach to stabilize the site, surcharging the site would cost a total
of $209,588,000. This would delay the opening of the terminal and increase the amount of
earthwork equipment required for the project. The Bayport site requires no similar
expenditures or construction measures to stabilize the existing site.
. Off site EmDty Container Yard - Bayport has 74.0 acres available for onsite empty container
storage and requires no offsite area for empty container storage. Spilmans Island is limited to
55.0 acres of onsite empty container storage. Therefore, in order to make the two sites
comparable, an offsite empty container storage area of 19.0 acres plus an additional four
acres for gate facilities would be required at a cost of $7,583,000. This includes the cost for
the property, gate facility, and a non-paved yard. This cost does not include annual
operational costs.
. Relocation of Existing Tenneco Dock and Pipeline - There is an existing Tenneco offloading
dock and pipeline facility adjacent to the Barbours Cut cruise dock. When the turning basin
is dredged for the Spilmans complex, relocation of this docking facility within the proximity
of the turning basin would be required. The estimated cost for relocation is $1,292,000.
2.6 Schedule Impacts
In addition to cost disparity, the scheduled opening dates of the two terminals are also quite
different. The Final Environment Impact Statement for Bayport is scheduled for completion in
April 2003. Bayport's master planning is complete and the first phase of the design will be
completed by April 2003. Assuming construction begins in late 2003, the Bayport terminal will
also open for operations in 2005.
Page 7
e
e
If the PHA decides to build a terminal at Spilmans Island, the PHA would begin by pursuing a
new permit. The estimated time line for permitting construction of a terminal at Spilmans Island
from filing to issuance of the permit will take an estimated three to five years. In addition, the
PHA would also begin the process of amending the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for
the Houston-Galveston Ship Channels (HSC 45-foot Channel Project) because Spilmans Island
is intended to serve as the maintenance dredging placement area for the Houston Ship Channel
and the Barbours Cut Terminal. This process involves a series of steps including reevaluation of
the HSC 45-foot Channel Project, development of NEPA compliance documents, review and
coordination with agencies, and preparation of a new PCA. The process to amend the PCA for
the 45-foot Channel Project is estimated to add an additional one to two years to the schedule to
open a terminal at Spilmans Island.
In addition to permit schedules, a terminal at Spilmans Island would require a master plan,
preliminary and fmal engineering design, and initial construction time to surcharge the site as
described previously. Consequently, the earliest date that construction could begin to surcharge
the site is 2007. In 2009, the site development and wharf construction could begin. Then, the
Spilmans Island terminal woul~ be ready to open in 2012.
2.7 Summary
The cost comparison for constructing terminals at Spilmans Island and Bayport shows that for
items common to both terminal development strategies, Spilmans Island is $22,004,000 more
than Bayport (see Table 1).
T bl 1 C
fC
D I
F
a e . omoarlson 0 ommon eve opment eatures
Item Bayport Terminal Spilmans Terminal
Land Acquisition $7,404,000 $8.155,000
MitiJZation $27.882,000 $1,817,000
Roadway Improvements $99,127,000 $37,874,000
Rail Access $95,013,000 $61,408,000
Pipeline Relocations $7,940,000 $51,000,000
Subgrade Preparation/Onsite $21,2S2,000 $40,250,000
Dredging Placement
Off site DredJZinJZ Placement $25,556,000 $77,625,000
Cruise Terminal Parkine: $7.748.000 $41,862,000
Detention Ponds and Pond $1,251,000 -
Outfalls
ClearinJZ and Grubbine: $4,814,000 -
Total Cost 297.987.000 319,991.000
In addition, the proposed terminal at Spilmans Island includes added costs totaling $314,804,000
for items not required at Bayport (see Table 2). These costs include a new offsite dredged
placement area, existing soil stabilization, increased additional structural support for the wharf,
an off site empty container facility, a cruise parking garage, and other improvements. A detailed
cost estimated for both sites is shown in Table 3.
Page 8
e
e
Table 2. Additional Costs for Develo in S ilmans Island Terminal ot Re uired at Ba ort)
Item S ilmans Terminal
Develop New Upland Placement Area and Incremental $54,782,000
Cost Increase to Place Dred ed Material into the Site
Transmission Line Relocation
Shoreline Protection of Backlands
Additional WharfPilin
Soil Pre aration
Off site Em Container Stora e Facili
Relocation of Existin Tenneco Dock
$10,830,000
$3,571,000
$27,158,000
$209,588,000
$7,583,000
$1,292,000
Total Cost
314,804000
Based on this cost analysis, the proposed terminal at the Spilmans Island site will cost an
additional $336,808,000 more than to build the terminal at the Bayport site. The Spilmans
Island site also requires secondary land use and prevents development of onsite business
opportunities currently planned for Bayport. The Spilmans Island terminal would not
open until 2012, while Bayport is scheduled to open in 2005.
Page 9
Commonto
-
lNtbOitnM BiMdflll& .tlIi..... CIl'uRS-.{N.i........
LAH/SuftlIr'ld 8aed0l'l1 ------
L.AN/8wIlIl:'!dea..don.
QuanUI
~
." L__
eoll
So~
i'ilA
i'ilA
i'ilA
i;;;:,.,.
"iTidii:'
.)~cy
PDrIlIld,................,
Tlw~Y*'CIwtII-.cIIO....aldnae--.Cut~
n.IriIIfmc:aIAIll"c:onnedb""'a.lIng~Cut~. __
M!l.E~'''''''''I:I1''DO,DOOr....,,~tI..tcn'''Ap1IlOlQTIP..um.tIt.TN~yaod'''M~IJ''''
.. 1III"....~Cl:lllld'S80....7.e...
..........1 - ,.,"""",,-----.
4O,25D,ooo LM~ 1 LM~ tn...................._...tcI....-wd'_rnlu'lI~_~.....~.
.......-
,GOO
...
..-
T~~ C~~
~
.!!!'1.
.!!!'1.
Jiii9:
.........
i.iOiJiOO
..,110000
,-...
iOO
~
<<l,25O,OOO
o:;;;:a;o
ea.n1.QllO
'iii'i:Dii'
.....
Unit
C~
- '-..:- ~
Unit
Site
Estimate
27)
!l!
ffi
ffi
r;;
-~~
us
---s:1i'
."
">.122
"'..
Iii
iOO
iii
...~""
U2 '"
...1 N;
~
2'4;210 SF
, t$5 ".0",
uno 61'
59500 SF
!.._ SF
,
lClDO-----.:T
, ..
.. 734 11
Solin 1I'
~
~
~
'"
no
""
..
._101
.u......
.........
lNf~ LNt~
T7 GOO
G-a_ LMI3o-..l
l..AH/3oriWIIII LAH~
41,112,000
7.000.000
1,101,1211
1;2'lil2,1T4
--"
m
.........
~ IS'lloE..."""o.lgn&CUrWucIllln~.
n:w.ml.f"nlliMrwye.""'~~_~~~Oalgn&ear.tuc:llan...........
--
8UbUlItaI
..
~::t::I~~8=:"~~Ja.......;
CoIlr..-tWBCr\Ae t...... RdIDN8 8M 10lil11.......1
F1yhmSSSH 14lIbEB~ClABMlftt.-1
ecn.:t WB Batboon Cut &hid ICI N8 SH 148 C2 ....1
'MoMn8altloonc.l8l\lO&
~
(f1P1.!AJ
~
........
I,
~~ll1~GO'Io""""""
Suborllde Preosnrtlon '"
E__. ~&CGr4*t
Offslte DredgIng Placement nl
er.dghg&~IDInIIpliorI'"
CoIIdpo,npng~"""'bn..~ -----
Crul.. Tennln!!l.tb1ktna fll
~
..f!:uI-T---
iii
iiI
'r'
b~..
-...
MllIaatlol
-..
;;;;;;;.
~hlMi
-
Total Colt
Campa'rtaon ~ Slinllar~opment Features '.' 'z:" :_.-:
~I' N ===1
~ - ~
~_ t. ~
- ==:j -
~ ll.!!.aoo
_ v,
........1
Table 3. Detailed Summary Cost
ort Terminal Site
Ba
~
~
:!.!!l.
~
~
~
~
~
..'"
!TI!I
~
J.1I8
..
g
U
Pl38
.......
~
.......
f!l!!JJn!..l!!!
8aypoIl,.....~
5uborade PreDaratlOI
~"'-'-ll."'-"'*I
Offalte DredGlna Placel
.-
51 M; . 7,141,0lIO
,
. 111000
1.GU M; . .,114,000 4,11 000
I2Iiiiiiiii "
r Spllmans Island Tennlnal Site not re
7,1_
It=-
~...
....
9 !!I!!.!I!!!
......PnirlQ
iddlUonal Stormwater Feal
......l"tnillD.W6:lnPcrolbI
~Ouddt f'NOaIJOUNItl
-- .......
:Jear & Grub
e...A.I,onAcnl:
000
~~Il.N\l~ e......conlhcllDtl..~~.-.-_.CiiIi.....-."i4W~..~......
lAH&llrnM. LM~ ~.
LANE*"-llI LM~ la"'HSC.___!c.IIWsIIPdtIoIl...__CIl)Itmcn""~"mudl..._ iiI.
319
Total
011 Tennlnal Site
.-.....
.........
... 2!. ..
~
...
--.
.........
Total
Bottom Une
$ 634.795.000
338,'0',000
T_"*'_~t1"___~.
~
I
I
!
,
.
I
.
.
GALVESTON
BAY
1500' JOClO' .500'
II
o
O' '500' JOOO'
Ia.............
EXHIBIT 3
,..
,
e
e
Jul 08 03 11:52a
Cit~ Ta~lor Lake Villace
2813265456 p.l
tl&tvI "POI A 4, a,t)rv
iClQcf
f1iH A fJLS
SPILMAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
Much of Spilman Island is built on old bay bottom. Except for the levees which are generally
constructed of dried maintenance material and clay material from dredging new material, the
area is soft material dredged from the Houston Ship Channel. In order to develop any portion
of Spilman Island, the soft wet mat.erial deposited over the years needs to have the water
removed, thus allowing the material to consolidate and improve its strength characteristics.
Consolidation and moisture removal could be achieved by pre-loading. A reasonable an;ta far
pre-loading would be approximately 5 acres in size. Approximately 20 feet of sand would be
p.laced and wick drains installed to allow the watet presently trapped In the dredge material to
escape as the sand consolidates the material. A 5 acre area would general be expected to
consolidate to an acceptable level over a 1 to 1-1/2 year period. The sand would then be
-"'moved to a second 5 acre area and the process repeated until whatever total area desired has
been consolidated to a useable condition. Sand is the proper material to use to load the area
because it is more economical to place and move and does not pose the problems
encountered when working with clay in wet conditions. Working on 5 acre areas at 1-1/2 year
intervals would yield 20 acres total for potential development after approximately ~ years.
Using 20 feet of sand over 5 acres, would ~equire approximately 205,000 cubic yards of sand.
Potential source of sand is dredging from bay area south of Ballester Street and pumping to
Spilman Island.
A soil boring program would need to be instituted to determine if a source of sand is available
and define an area to be used as a sourca for the sand. Additionally, an extensive
1
e
e
.Jul 08 03 11:52a
Cit~ Ta~lor Lake Villa~e
2813265456
p.2
geotechnical investigation would need to be undertaken on Spilman Island to define present
conditions of the material to be consolidated and establish design parameters for this type of
project. This is a -thumbnail- sketch of what might be done. An actual development program
for Spilman I.sland would need to be pursued very cautiously because of the uncertain and
complex geotechnical problems which would need to be addressed as well as how to deal with
the issue of diverting a portion of a major disposal area from use in the Houston Ship Channel
maintenance dredging program.
~c
e
e
Jul 08 03 11:52a
Cit~ Ta~lor Lake Village
2813285458
p.3
COST ESTIMATE
A. Initial Dredging to Supply Sand
1. Mob/Demob $200,000
2.. Pipelines 100,000
3. Overburden Dredging
520,000 yd 3 x $3.75/yd 3 = $1,950~000
4- Sand Dredging
250,000 yd 3 x $3,75/yd 3 = 93?500
Sub-Total $3,187,500
20% Contingency 637.500
TOTAL ~,825,000
B. Wick Drain Installation
Assume install on 7' x 7' grid over 5 acres
5 x 43.560 = 4,445 Drains
49
Installation depth assumed to be 40 ft.
4,445 x 40 x $0.50 = $ 88,900
20% Contingenoy 17.780
TOTAL $ 106,680
c. Move Sand to New 5 Acre Area
250,000 yd 3 x $8.50/yd 3 = $2,125,000
D. Cost for Initial 5 Acres
. 1. . Dredging $3,825,000
2. Wick Drains 106.680
$3,931,680
.
o
e
e
.Jul 08 03 11:52a
Cit~ Ta~lor Lake Villa~e
2813265456
p.4
E. Second 5 Acre Area
1. Move Sand $2,125,000
2. Wick Drains 106.680
Sub-Total $2,231,680
20% Contingency 446.336
TOTAL $2,678,016
Assume 3% Increase for each remaining
5 Acre Area.
F. Third 5 Acre Area
$2.678,0~ 6 x 1.03 = $2,758,357
G. Fourth 5 Acre Area
$2.758,375 x 1.03 = $2,841,108
TOTAL EST. COST EaUALS SUM OF
0, E, F ~ND G
f12.209.161
Cost/Acre $12.209.161
20
=
$610,458
,':\SPIUo\Nl718
.
..)
Message
e
e
Page 1 of 1
,;
Harris, Sharon
From: Laurence W. Tobin
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11 :04 PM
To: Harris, Sharon
Subject: S&ME Report .
The S&ME Report is the analysis authorized by Harris County Infrastructure that refutes much
of the analysis provided by PHA. This was done by an engineering familar with working with
building on dredge disposal material.
As most people are aware, Spillman's Island is not a really a dredge disposal island. The
island was there long before PHA started putting disposal material on it. The muck is a crust of
varying thickness above the original island structure.
This report is scan from a fax. I will try to obtain a better copy. Please note cost estimates in
the report.
7/9/2003
tj: ;;
.
e
.
.
~y 16. 2003
Mr. Arthur L Storey, Jr., P .Eo
Harris County Public InfrastrUcture Deparuncnt
1001 Preston, 7* Floor
Hou.!o10n. TX 77002
Rt: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF ST ABILIZA TION
Spilmans Island - Alternative Site for Proposed PHA Bayport Container re~.al
Houston. Texas
S&.ME lob No. 1131-03-;4 \
Dear Mr. Storey:
We have completed our preliminary geotechnical study of the Spilmans Island dredge disposal
site as an altemati"e location for the proposed Pan of Houston Authority Baypon Container
TemUnal. Our services were provided in general accordance with S&ME Proposal No_ 1l-03.
160, dated April 16, 2003. The purpo!:e of this work was to evalwue existing data from SpUmans
Isiand in order to provide our opinion on the geotechnieal &asjbil~ Il.nd cost of converting the
dredge disposal site to a container terminal.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity [0 work with Harris County on this interesting project
If you have c.oy questions, please do net hesitate LO C81~
Sincerely,
SliME. IDe.
; );
/vA^- ~
WiUiam M. Camp, ~
Senior Professional
~vJ :~
L).-L '-l_L~ .~
Jack J. Amar, P.E.
Senior Vice President/Senior Engineer
Forrest w. Foshee
Vice President/Senior Professional
WMCIFWF/JJNjfc
I S&Mf.'. 'roe.
.,,^f__a~" ..__.. I
I~J 8B4.OOQS
S&ME Spillman Report.max
l.
a.}-or:"
0;
I
I
. \
.
e
-~
--' ----.--------- ~-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT UfJ'OBMATIOl'l
I
,
I
l
I
T...._ Dft,"'" ,.~UA.~~ A....L............ I"DUA. \ _1..._ _^ _....-.o'W'_...... - -_.. -.':-... _l.!_ --.I ___A_=__." --":-,.,
-l11G CULL U.l nu_ .ru&U1UU'J' \1: ~} IIJ111~ lU ....~UWl~ CI uc;w w.~ awl' ClllU \;U.ll4IU-=a ~'UlUAI
.facility. The proposed tennina.l will uhimately include seven coDl8iner ship baths. three cruise
. ship be11bs, a comainer yard. an intet~dal tranSpOrtation facility, an empty conrainer storage
area BDd passeager partring. Tba current plan is to COnBlnlct the new &ciliry on the 1,043-acre
Baypon tad. which is just soUth of the BaypoJt Ship ClJAftl\~J Spilmans Island. an
a:pproxiauatcly 9O<Hae dnclge dispo~ site across from. the Barbours Cut Container Tennina~ is
- -.....-
being ~ u an altc:mative site. A comparison of We OOSlS to deve.lop the two sites has
been made for the PHA by Lockwood. Andrews &; Newman. Inc. (LAN). Within tbcu tesuhing
summary report'. LAN estimated tbat it would cost approximately $337 snil~n more to develop
the SpDmaas Island site. Approxima~ly ~IO million of the $337 miUion difference is due 10
the estimaled costs asso~ with stabilizing the very soft dredge spoil that covers Spilmans
1sJaDd.
......
! Since the srabilizatiou costs are such a large poniOD ofthc total cost difference ~p too two
,
\ sites. Haais County asked S&ME, Ine.. to evaluaIe the available data wid1 the objectives of
devc:;lopiDg an independent estimate of Ihe casts and delmnining the feasibility of stabilizing the
Spiln\aDll&1aDd. site. IfAvins worked extensively wilh the development of dred&e disposal ~es..
S&ME is 'Well quali1iec11o ~rm such an evaluation. Our ~ project experience includes
CM\luatio; of ~ major CODtaiIJer tcmDnalstbat are p~ to be CODStnlcted on ckedgt
disposal sites sinu1ar to the SpibnaP.s Island property: the Soutli Carolina State Ports Authority
Daniel Island propertY ill Cbar1esron. SC; SSA'S Corrtainer TenniDal on the Savannah River in
Jasper CQ\m[Y, SC aDd Texas City's Shoal Poinr filc:iJity. We also provided similar services in
. ------....-.-..... ..---
conjunctioJa with expIDSious dull inwJved reclamation ofd:redge spoil &ress at the Wando Welch
Termi.oa1 in Sourh CaroliD.. AdditioDaUy, we have worked on munerous smaller projects in the
~.
I A CDIIIptInIIive A_I_ 8elwun 1M Spilmr.>>o Island tII'Id IIDypoIT SiUll. Prepared by Loclcwacd, ADdrcws &
N_aq. ~ for Ihp Pen gfflouwvn AU1IIor'ky, f'coruary 25, .lOa).
Tuesday, July 08, 2003.max
e
e
;
Charleston. and Savannah area that have involved thI: stabilization of soft soil sites. Our
approach u>wards the evaluation of the Spilmans Island site followl the proVl!n pror.:edUJ"eS that
have been used on these previous projects.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
In very broad terms, our objectives with regard to this preliminary study were: 1) to review and
evalUllte the available subsurface data, 2) to evaluate the feasibility of the most likely site
stabilization optioDs (with regard to time, performance and cost), aDd 3) to provide cost estimaIes
for several of me most likely alternatives. Considerine the diff"lCulty in collecting additional
subsurmc:e data - the site is currently very wet necessitating the need for slJCcial low-ground
pre9sure exploration equipment - and the preliminary nature ofme proposed study. no additional
data bas been collected. Additionally, our evaluation bas only considered the primary
geotechnical col1SttUction cost. stabilization of the <kedge spoil Specifically, our engineering
analyses have focused on: 1) defining the magnitude of the settlement problems associated with
filling the site and the subsequent application of a larie areal container load. 2) develoPine
various solutions for precoD90lidatina the site, utili:dng conventional techniques (i.e..
surcharging with wick drains). and 3) developing preliminary cost estimates for each
preconsolidatiOD alternative, in order to evaluate the economic viability of each.
1.3 FUTURE WORK
.\;. .
As detailed in a SUbseq\leDt seelioD, this work whic;h is memi to apply to the entire 900! acre
dredge disposal site" is based on a l'eWively minor amount of 8ubsurface dara. If' fUrther
consideration of the Spilmans Island. site is deemed warranted, a much more eonJprehensi~e
geotechnical exploration and testing program will be required to more thoroughly evaluate the
potential terminal cSevelopment optionS. In addition, this study cSoes not address many
geotechnical issues. (e.g., dredge slope stability, wharf and land-side structure foundations.
paving systems, etc.) nor any of the non-geotechPical issues (termioal Iayour. wharf type,
. acconunodation of existing users, etc.) that would eventually have to be addressed_ However,
2
S&ME Spillman Report.max
.
.
.
e
.. -
many of fbcsc: issues and aqaJyscs arc dependent upOft the mcrhod(s) and materials $elected to
preconsolidate the container yard. Furthermore. the variahilit)o of coat 8SllOeialed with Wee
issues. and mcir combined lmpacr on the economic feasibiHty of pon. coDStnlCtion ar thi$ $itc. are
reJatively small as compared to the cost of site pce.wation across the vast container ;yard.
..''!.;' .
J
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
--4iI
1.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
S&ME has not perfumed or been involved with any geoteChnical exploration of the Spilmans
Island site, but we have been provided subsurface data in the fOnD of'reports prepared by others.
~:PCCi~~'OUfaaiow~geoi~<e l5'tTaseQ on a JeVJCw 01 inC:: wuOwuig DOcumems:
. 1994 Re:poJt by HVl Associates, Inc. - Geol,chnical Memorandum, Disposal Area
~g.mllnr PIon- Spil>>UIns'lslii"tl. AIAroMU lilL",d.. lAslllJlz (Report No. 93-249G).
. 1996 Report by HVJ Associates. Inc. - GeoI~t:hniCQI Memorandum, Spilmans Island
DllposalArea Mtmagement Plan (Report No. 95-17SG..olS)-
. 1998 Report Or!IVJ Associates. Jnc. - Engineering Design Report, Design of Dredged
/lllQtcrlal PlacemenT Mea- $pilmatlS Isl(11'ld, J/qustfM- Galveston" Navigarion Channel
d-Foor Proj'cJ (Report No. 97-1450-81).
. 2.003 Rc:pon by HVJ Associates. Ioc. - Assessment of GeoteclmiCQl ConditiQ1tS, Bayporr
Marine Termi1tQ1. SpilmtllU 11land A./rem"te Developmlnt Lof:arion (.Report No.
02..:l200H.0).
It sbouJd. be IIC)[e(! tbat geotechnical wor1c to date on SpllrnaDs Island bas been pcrfbnncd ill
conjlmttialn with dredge disposal area management studies. The primary focus of these stUdies
has been on dike stability and ways to increase storage volume. COMequem.ly, the boring
locations BDd Jabozarol)' testing progrlUIL'l are inadequate for a thorough evaluation of containel
tetminal clcVelopmcllt opbOos.. Howo~. the l'InIri&rapby and soil propmy cJata provklcc1 by"the
-1""
available Iming5 are sufficiem to allow us to make SOIB rea50Dlbly general assumptiOn9. In
particular, the data presented in the 1996 repon bas been most use1Ul since it contains 19 bo~s
.!..hat were 4riUed witlUn the in1er~!_9fthc; .WQil"bas~~ But again it must be noted thal19 borings
distn"bwecl across tbe interior of a 9OO:t acre site is a statistically small sampling of the
subsurmccs conditions.
In g~ the sobsurface conditions consist of 20 10 30 ft of dredge spoil over rnuch morc
.--....-~_._.-.._--_......... ---...----.
compc:tcnt native soils (consisting of interbedded ~ sib and clays). Laboratory testS
performed on the dredgG ~oil indicate that moisture CODtentS range from 20010 to 12S%. plastic
-
4
Tuesday, July 08, 2003.max
e
e
Summary ofS& ME.Inc.'s Spilman's Island Stabilization Study dated May \6. 2003
1. The con conclusions can be summarized as follows:
. The stUdy produces a range of eon per Bcreto stabilize Spilman's Island ofSl49,OOO to
$242,000. The higher costs are for shorter surcharge times (one year rather than two
years) and hea'Vies-de,isn loadings (1000 psfvs 835 pst).
. The average cost per acre for the eight CIl$cs is about S 182,000.
. The latest Port of Houston estimate a3sumes S2S8,750 per acre to stabilize Spilman's
Island, 42% higher than the average of the S&ME estimates.
. The cost figures produced by the S&ME study and the Port are based on the same basic
technique for stabilization (surcharge and wick drains). The same geotechnical data were
available to the bath group..
2. The S&ME stu~y states that it consisten~ adopts.conscrvativ:e assumptions Ihat result in
higher end cost esumates. Mid-range, or 50 percennle, assumptions would reduce the COSt
estimates. Specific examples of these assu~ptions include: .
. Assumes that 1996 eJ~tion8 are still applicable. If existing grade is now higher (as Ehey
believe is likely due to tbe addition of additional spoil), surcharge requirements and
hence costJ will be lower.
. Did not consider potential benefits of sand layers el1COllntered in some borings (which.
would reduce amount of settlemEnt, decrease time to consolidate, and reduce cost).
. Assumes that entire site is developed al once, which inCTt-.aaec eoatlt because surcharge
materials cannot be used repeatedly by moving it ftom section to section. (pOH proposes
to develop container tenninal in phases; therefore, there is no reason that the entire island
should all be stabilized at once.)
. Assigns no salvage value to surcharge fin, even though excess fill may be sold.
. Aaswnes thal611 will cost $5.50 Icy, although costs from TxDOT for similar sized fill
projects range up to. only $5.00Jcy with around S3.00/cy as the most common value. The
study includes east estimates for a .-an8e offill costs. At n.OO/ey, the s&ME range is
SllO,OOO/acre to S170,OOO/acre, with an aven8' ofS13~,OOO. The Pon', estimate per
Kre is 95'% higher. .
3. Other interesting comments from the S&ME study:
· "Oyerall, the subsurface conditions across Spilman's Island appear to be in lme with or
slightly better than condition, we have encounlelled at other tnajor terminal sites of
similar histol)' (i.e., old dredge disposal ueas)......
· "Our analyses indicate that site preparation costS for a Spihnans lsland container terminaJ
should be less than those we have calculated for tbese other major terminal sites, .
panicuJarly ifa lower fill rate can be reasonably justified."
· "The ~o~ts o~whufpiJings h~ve been estim~ted {by the Port of Houston's study] to be
$27 million higher for the Spilmans Island Jute. We wtderstand tha~ this 6SVrc is b&$cd
on the allsumption that the drilled piers that will make up the tangent pier wall at the front
of the Spilmans Island wbarfwiU have to be 40 ft longer. This may certainly be U'Ue,
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
.
however, we suspect that for conditions such as those at Spihnans Island, there may be
more economical alternatives than a tangent pier wall wharf structure (e.g.. an open wharf
with a contairunent bund),"
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
.
limits range from 19 to 42, liquid limits range from 3S to 14.5 and void ratios are generally
between 0.98 and 1.78. It sho\11d be noted that the boring and laboraro1')" data are from field
testing performed both within the interior of the dredge spoil area as well as along the
contaimnenf dike. Subsurface conditions within and below the dikes arc likely better than the
interior conditions since the dikes were constructed with dried aDdIor select spoil material and
their slightly greater height/weight may have improved the spoil beneath them
The most important soil parameters for a settlement analysis are the consolidation characteristic
of the soil The neclllaaary parameters ale typically o~d through eOnAolidation testing of
undisturbed samples. . Since the previous geotechnical studies at Spilmans bland were not
desi~ 10 ad~ss site development issues, very little consolidation testing has been performed.
Based on our review of the provided data, it appce.rs t.ba.t only ~. consolid8~ion te~~ have been
.......__...... _ o. ..n. h_
performed (designated Sl-1, 814, and SI-9 from the 1994 report and SI~20 from the 1996 report)
and of these four only one was perfurmed on a SJmple taken from a boring performed in the
interior of the spoil basin.
Based on the data provided on the borings from the 1996 repoIt, it appears that the elevation of
the interior is approximately ~O MLT (mean low tide). However, the data is now more than
7 years old and we understand tlJat BdOJllOD3.l arco.gc spoil Dza:s t)Q:;u mJ&JQJ. Oil WI;; uu.. ._.a,
the dredge spoil bas be,en settling under its own weight. For a Jack of more cunenl datIL, we have
assumed that the 1996 elevations are still applicable. From a coSt standpoint, this is likely a
conservative assumption since if the existing grade is actually. ~gher. surcharge requirements
. ....
~u~~m~~~. .
s
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
.
3,0 GEOTECHNICAL OVERvIEW
From a geotechnical standpoint, the rapid yet economical stabilization of the 20 10 3j ft of soft.
compressible c;la:r is one of the main constrUCtion issues tilcing tenninal development at
SpibDans Island. When actual design objectives and c;onstrodion plans are more fully dcrmed.
many other geotecluUcal issues wiU have to be addressed (e.g., pavement design, srructure
support. slope stability at boundaries, etc.). However, no other geotechnical issue will effect the
cost and riming of consuuction like initial site stabilization. Consequemly, the analyses
presented in this cursory study are focused. on the stabilization issue.
3,1 SETTLEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION PRINCIPLES
When tht stresses within a soil StratWn increase (e.g., wlum a till, pavement or conla.iner load is
placed on the sur1iwe), the individual soil particles are forced iDto a smaller volume: which results
in a reductiDD of the ""oid space between the soil particles. If the void space (or pore space) is
filled with waler (Le., when soils are below the water table), the reduction in void .space initially
results in an increase in pore presgure.. For relatively free.dfabUng soils such as sands. the pore
pres~C5 are quickly dissipated as the water flows out of the soil. ~ the water tlQws out, the
soil compresses (voids are now sIDIIller) and as a result, settlement" occurs. Within clay, t~
movement of pore water is Quite restricted and consequemly, tbe pore pressure dissipation is
much slower. Settlement, tbetefore, occurs oYer a much longer period of time.
;~
The dissipation of excess pore pressure is termed consolidatia~ and the end of pore pressure
dissipation is termed the cod of primary consolidation. Howcvec, even after the excess po~'
prcs~ is lUIly dissipated, a soil will continue to c.ompn:s:s due to a continued rearrangemcm of
soil particles. This additioml settlement is temJed secondQry consolidalion or compression, 8lICl
is generally much smaller than the settlement resulting from primary consolidation.
WIlh regild to primal:)' consolidation, die magnitude of the 5Cttlcment is a function of the load
aDd the soil's coq)teSSibUity. The rale of the senlemenl is a fUnction of the soil's
compressibility, its permeability. and the square of the disWW;e the pore watCI muSt travel 10 a
heIy draining boundary. The drainage distanCe relationship ls very important. for example, a .
6
S&ME Spillman Report.max
'.
e
e
drainage distanee of S will resuh in a settlement rate that is tour times fAster than the rate for a
draJDage dlllUUK:e uf 10 (i.~., 101 - 100 VlI. 52 - 25). Bued on th4N:e principle" settlement
mitigation fur a given load is typically accomplished by either reinforcing the soil to reduce its
comprcssibiULY, or pl'CCOD50li~liJag tho ..it. by prck>.dina or suzebarging2. Methodll 10
acGderate the dissipation of excess pore pressures, such as by che installation of wick drains, are
typically used in conjunction with a preload. The basic principles of these settlement mitigation
methods are as fol1ows~ .
Rf:infoteemc:nt. By inueasing the composite stiffnCs.5 of a soil mass, settlement
masnitudes ean be reduced. The sc'ttlement reduction is a result of twO related
physical processes. The reinforcement reduces the overall compressibility of the
deposit and the stiffer reinforced mnes carry a greater percemage of the load.
thereby reducing tho load on lhe more compressible soil. Rf:inforccment is
typically accomplished by installing stone columns or by usma soil mixing 1.0
create lime-soil or soil-cement' COluIIU1S. However, in consideration of me size of
the proposed termiPal development and tbe thiclcQcss oftbe compressible soil, soil
reinforcement will probably be prohibitively expensive..
Surchar2in2. The post-consuuc:tion compressibility of a soil deposit can be
reduced by ptCCODSOlidating the suawm with II soil SUl'tbarge prior to
colJSt1'UCtion. By the time the final loads .are applied (or befure settlement
sensitive coDStl'UCtion begins). the compressibility can be reduced such tbat
subsequent loading will result in tolerable settlement. :~bat8i218 is frequently
U!ed in coqjunction. with wick drains. The combination results in a much shorter
surcharge period.
z. .The Icrm '"preload." glllenl!)' rcfccs EO the plllc:anenl of pc:nnlll1cut fill {or oCher Cotm or pennanCllc loadias> prior
to lhe JtII1 of'settllll1lent slID3ilivo cODS1Nction. tbltteby affonliDa lbe soil lime to subilize under die new l08diJ1g.
The tcITll -surcbat&c'" lmenl1y refers to II temporary placezQlmt of fill or od1er funD of loading. ll!etVOS me same
Nnaion 81 II prdoa4 witb the only di:llinc:tion bci.og chat it is ulrimately removed. A surdlarge is often l.&sed to
clIIhanCe die puformanGl: oh proload mdfor to simulate the Ilffcc:u ofsubscqw:nt lille JQa(b.
7
S&ME Spillman Report.max
..
e
e
." .
loadi8A. tolerable IiUJ'charAe times and tolerabll': post~QOnsw~ion scmlernent The major
.
Wiele Drains. The dre.inagc dislanc;c is often reduced. lhcreby aceelerati12g the
sealemcnt r8l~ by instaUiDg wick drains. The wick dniDs ore installed in I grid
paftcm. 1WI ~leall}' fully pcnetnl1e the compressible layer. Dependinm Dn the
wid( spacing, coD50lidation times can typically be reduced by a fac.lor of 4 to 10.
Based on our experience with similar sites aM our knowledge of tilt cclauvc eoslS of groWld
i1llplO1I'emem options, we have restriettd our analyses to prcloadil18lhe sile. with a soil surcbarge.
in conjunction with the installation of wick drains. This is by far 1he most common ground
modification program used for large scaJe scuJemcat mitigation projects, lU1d as such, is
genetall)' the most ocoaomiQl1. However. consideration of additioual l)JOund improvemc;nt
optio!19 m&J be wurranted der tul\lrC rdinemen1 oftenniDal design details.
3.2 ANA.LYSIS DETA.ILS AN)) ASSUMPTION'S
3.1.1 Melllod or AD.lysis
Our settlement 8DIlyses were perfurmed using urCONSOL. a tiniIc difference computer code
published ~ the Geo1ccbaical Engineering Center 81 tb& U~vmity of Texas at AUStin. This
powc:ttW program bas a great deal of flexibility. SO~ of the D1Drc salient fi:atun::s of tho
program ~ listed below:
. Dzaillage Cl8D be radial (e.g., towards wiele draiDs), vertital, or both rkdiAl and vatical
. Fill c:aA be placed BDdIor removed instantaneOusly, ill steps, or as a aonlinear lUncrloD of
time. .~ ...
.~,
. SoD properties (e.c-. coJnpreSSibility and coefficient of consolidation) can vary with
~
. Mubiple layera of compressible .oils can be contidered.
. GrOUD4warer can rise with tiU placement, sta)' col1SWlt or &.l1, and corrections &Ie made
for buoyam:y ..fill is submerged.
3.1.1 AIIumed CoutrllctioD DetailllDd tar&ct Criteria
Due \0 IhB conceptual mNlC of this work, our sealcmcnt analyses teql1ittd numerous
asswnptioI1S and approxhnstions concerning fmished ~, fill coDSt1'\lc:tion rates, surficial
I
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
loading, tolerable surcharge times and tolerable post-tOnstruction aetdemcnt. The major
8l1SUmptiona uud in our aaalYlle5 are summarized in Table I and discussed in the following
paragraphs.
TABLE 1- MAJOR ASSUMPDONS
Requited Assumption
Target Subpade ElcM&ioll
Allowable Posl-CoDslmcfion SC1dcIm:m
Loads ciJ.c 10 PavemcDl WapI and ConJaiDcr SCack:s
Surcharge Ptriod
Avct'8F BxiItiDg Glade
lailial Depch to Grouadwa/cr
GcOUDdwatcr Behavior
WickDmia s~
Dm1IiOD offil1~
UtiJity/PaveJDeQl col1SU\l.Ction dnratiOll
Asaumed Value
+18 MLT
6 in..
8JS psfor 1000 psf
1 year or 2 yeaas
+20MLT
1ft
RiGel ud dIcn foUo,,", oriFa! UOWJd 5Idlc:e
s ft or 7 ft (QiangWar JIIlU:I'U)
21 dZyJ
2yan;
. Tared Subgrade - We assume that the average final subgrad"e elevation beneath the
container yard pavement will be approximately 18 MI.T. Asswning that a 12 to 18 in.
pAveOlCnt acvtion is lYGd, this will correspond to a finished container yard elevatioEl of
approximately 19 to 19.5 MLT.
. Allowable ro,t-Connnadioa Setdement - Although higher than. tbe settlemeDl
tolerance that would be used OD a 'chard" site, 6 inches is a typical value that bas been
used during the design of other container tenninals on dredge disposal islands.
. Loadillg - For Ic:ttlcment analyses. the average 10Dl-t~ distn"buted load that will be
generated by the staeked containers must be estimatid. The maximum permissible
container weight times that maximum stick beigbt is the theoretical upper bound but such
II. value wJ1l be: overJy QOl\servmivo sinc. the aCNu CODUlinet weight is rarely t~
JIWdmwD. Additionally, the average pressure applied by a row of containers will. be
distributed over & wider area by the presence of the pavement section and subgrade soils.
The values of 835 plf and 1000 psf used in this study represent the range of pavement
subgrade contact pressures that we have used 00 other container terminal projects.
. Surcbarge Period. - We asaumed d1at the surchar8e would be left. in place for either 1 or
2 years (from final surcharge fill placement to the stan of surcharge removal). The
overan terminal constnacUon time would obviously be looser.
9
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
.. EUBtiaa Grade aad Grollad'Water CODditioD' - Based on the available data and our
assumptions concerning the history of the site over the last 8 years, the average existing
grade was assumed to be 20 MLT, and tbe mnial groundwater was assumed to be at Il
depth of I it below the ground surface. We also Nsumed that the groundwater will rise
somewhat during surcharging, but never into the permanent fill and surcharge. For this
assumption to be trUe, an extensive system of drains IJ)llSt be placed on tbe existin8
ground surfiJce and maintained throughoUt the surcharge program. I(tlls water is allowed
to rise within the fill (or conversely, if the fiU is allowed 10 .iulc into &he waxer), the
effective weight of 1he fill \\fill be reduced and our ewrc;nt aIIalyses will no 10Dies- \x
applicable.
. Wick Drain Spaciag - Based on our cost estimating experience on similar projects, we
limited our wick drain spacings to wIues of eitber 5 fl or 7 ft (in a triangular grid
pattern). Performance is not improved for closer spacings and the required surcharge
heights typically become ~cess.ive for grelller spacings.
. CODlItnu:rioa Period - We assumed that the surcharge fill. regardless of the required
height. win be placed over a )-weelc periOd3. This is a simplification in our aaalyses and
it means that the ~ of fill placement will vary slightly withuuach oftht: scenarios thaI
we evaluated. We also assume that container loading will not be applied untU 2 years
after SUtdwge RrDOval (10 alloW for coPStnlClion of utilities. pavement, aud whad).
Although this may be a realistic assumption, our analysis is not very sensitive to the
asswned. value.
3.2.3 Auumed SoD Profile. Ind Properties
After rovicwin& Iha limited field and laborlUoty test data, 'We e'ialuated ODe siIDplifaed profile,
which is shown in Figure L The profile. which is based on the available data as well as our
experience with similar soils, includes 30 ft ofvexy soft <;ompressiblc clay. We have assumed
_._..... ~. . .. . ~ ." .... .. ..6
thatt the clay is nonnally coosolidated with a compression ~ of 0.3 and a coefficient of
cOll9OlidationofO.021 ft/day, The total unit weight oftbe clay is ~ed to be 9S pcfand the
initial water table is assumed to be 1 ft below the surfAte. We assume that the clay is ovedyiilg
. an impenneable layer (i.e.. single ckailJage only) witb a relatively low compressibility. Finally,
we assume that f1J1'1 new rol or surcharge will have a total unit weight of 110 pet: Although saod
layers were em:oUlltered within some borings. the potential beaefits of these granular straIa were
, This doee lI.oC mllllll Jhat we assllRl~ rbaI: the entire site will be fiUed over a ]-week period. Rather, we USU\'lle Wl
any unit area sufficimdy large (te., ~100' 11:100') to be represea1lti\'e of our lIIClement ana\}3is model vtiU br:
6Ued MtbiD . 3 week pciod.
lO
S&ME Spillman Report.max
I
I
I
I
r
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
r
I
lot ~d
e
i
vU)'i1l8 _ips of s.u
~
30 ft
..IIME
NnSNnwn1/A~~~T~q
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
SorchargefPermanear Fill:
1... -110 pd'
Dredse Spoil:
'Y1da1 = 9S pc!
Cc;'. 0.3
Cr and CV = 0.0217 ft2/day
.: ~
Nuive Soils:
Far tM purpose of dais IIIIlysis, chac
soils"aR 81sumed rdarively
impenneab1e aad inoolllp'CSSible
Mvdel Proflle F~ No:
Spilmans I.Janel
Housron. Texas 1
TCh'r7hQTQ7'
nn.r7 T7""~~'~n
20 legend 50
V. Settlement
I Fill Elevation
~
- 40 40 ~
c
Co I
'E S
c:
~ T8rF 0
~
oS! elCYlIl.iOD Hz:' / ~
!
60 30 jjj
-
u-
BO \ 20
/' ~:..~
wn:batgc n:awYal colJlPlele PmmClll and
QOAaUDCI" IDIId applied
100 10
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
o
lob No : un.o:M41
: MAY, 2003
OTCaDSOl Gzap)a
e
e
60
Fitp.are No:
lIME
settJemeDt . Fill Curve ex&a,p1e
SpilmaDs Is1alld .
HOUSIDD. Tew
%
S&ME Spillman Report.max
I
I
I
I
I
"I
.
e
not coDSidered in our analyses. Such sand laye~ would reduce the magnitude of our estimared
settlement. and increase the estimated settlement rme.
3.1.4 ProcedUR
AU analyses were perfonned using tbe same step-by-step procedure. The individual steps are
described below and. illllstnted in Figure 2.
1. Initially wiele: drains that fully penetrated the dredge spoil were installed. Wick drains
were spaced on S it or 7 ft centers in a triangular pattcm.
2. Thirty days after wick draiP placement, fill was placed to some elevation, Z. over 8
3 week period. Elevation Z was varied for each run. As a starting point. elevation Z was
typically DJade equal to the existing ground surface elevation plus a fill thicl(ness with a
weight equal 10 the live loading (835 psfor 1000 pst).
3. 1110 fill was left in place for 1 or 2 years, and then removed over a 10 day period until the
fill clevalion was equal to the W'gt'l 5ubgrade elevation of 18 ML T.
4. After a :2-yr period with tbe fill at the tarset $\lbga.de elevation, e liw Ioa.ding of 835 psf
or 1000 psi was applied. (simulated as th8 instanta~us placement of an equivalent
weight of fill).
S. The seaJemem ocewring as a result of the li'Vc loading was recorded and the process was
repeated until an elevation Z was determined that resulted in 8 post-constnlCtion
seu1ement of6 U1ches.
3.3 FILL DRAINAGE
: .,
To ma~ chc etl'ectivcn.s. oitbe sun:harse, the groUDdwater must be preventetf &om ~i~g
within the BU. [fthe gOUMwater rises. fill becomes subnwrged and the resulting weight o{tbe
fill is rcdw;ed due to buoyan~. Consequently,. network of perforated plastie drainage pipes
will have ro be iosta1led at the base of the fill. Our sealement analyses are based on the
assulnption that the gmundwater is kept 81 the fllVexisrina material interfaee. tn other words. the
water tabl& is assumed to drop as the site settles. It is very itnportant that this condition be
maintained durin& the entire surcharge period. Our subscq\lcm cost estimates include an
allowance ofSS.OOOlacrc: for a gravity dramase system. This system would potentially con.sist of
12
S&ME Spillman Report.max
I
/
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
e
a netWOrK of strip drains and perforated, plastic drainage piping; probably 4.in. [0 6-in. diameter
laterals and l8-in. to 24-i.n. trunk lines and collectors.
.:',.
14
S&ME Spillman Report.max
.
e
4,0 llESULTS OF SEnLEMENT ANALYSES
4.1 SUMMARY FIGURES
Th~ resultS of our analyses are summarized in Table 2 Uld in Figures Al through A8 in the
Appendix. Within Table 2 the required surcharge elevations. conesponding total fill thicknesses
(or fill demand). and resulting pOSt-surcharge pennanent fill thiclcncsses are listed for each
scenario.
TABLE 2 - ANALYSES aESUL'IS
Total TGt"
s.a~""Ii. J1U Perm_t J'lU Fill J:.timded
Lo~ Wick SpldDC l'illle nidaaeis Thkbal RclDOved COli Pu Acre
(rc) ()T) (It) (ft) (ft)
5 1 iO.7 1.9 8.8 ._..~l66.j!.3__._
----
83 S pc! 2 9.~_ ~_.!:.!.- 7.6 $IS2,OO8
. -- -----..- ---.--.----.
1 1 14.4 2.0 12.4 SI9S.786
2 JOT 1.1 -.----..
8.6 $149.030
5 1 13.4 2.5 10.9 $196,911
1000 1J&f :1 11.a ~_. 2.5 9.3 -'''-'''$177,475
u:r-- '.-
7 1 2.6 __..1S.7 S24%,032
.. ..... . . .......... . ...-
2 13.1 2.4 10.7 S179,065
The results of the settlement analyses demonstrate that the site can be stabilized in a reasonable
time frame (i.e.. 1 or 2 .years) and to II reasonable performance level (i.e., 6 in. of post-
CODStrucUOR settlement under I loadins of 8~S psf to 1000 psf). However. the results are Rot
very beneficial unless costS are assigned. To develop cost estiraates for each of the lIl1&l)'zed
scenarios" the unit cosr.1Uld assumptiOWllisted in Table 3 were;'iScd.
TABLE 3.- tJ1liIT COST ASSU)OTIONS
Ileal
Uail
COlt
$5.50
$2.00
SO.SO
SI.2S
$5,000
$2,000
Fill placement; per cubic: yard
FiJI removal; per cubic yard
Wick draina; per linear ft.
Geosynthetic; per square yard
Drainage SyStem Allowance; per acre
Instiumenwiou. En;n~. QAlOCI Monitoring AJlowancc; per acre
.IS
S&ME Spillman Report.max
J
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
J
I
I
I
-
e
.' .
for COSt estin:latWg.PUIpOSCS, we've: made the BS3Umption tl'.!a1 the c:otirc site is da-clopcd at
o~. From a costing staDdpoinr. this is a conservative assumption (i.e., yields a higher cost)
since it efiminates the advantaaeous possibility of moving the slJtcherge from one portion of the
site to the next. Additionally. we have not assianed any salvage value to lhe surcharge fill. In
reality, rather than paying to remove the fill. it may be possible \0 sell the excess material. Our
costs are based on individual wick drain lengtbs of 30 ft and the ~ainage system allowance
covers the cost of both strip drains (to connect the wicks on the surtace) and trunk lines (to take
the water off-site). Since the pc:nnaneni fill thickness is less than 3 ft. we have included lID
allowance fOr the placement of a geosynt.betic layer to serve as a separator between the dredge
spoil and the subgrade soils (ie.. permanent fill), Finally. we have included an aUowance for
qineering oversight and QAlQC ~vices during fill placement and instrumentation installation
and monitoring during surcharging.
Using the costs listed in Table 3 lI(ld the resu113 of our $CUlOll1fpt aoal)'SC:i. the costs per acre for
each of the analyzed scenarios were estimated and are included in Table 2. The costs are also
plutu:d versus selected variables ill figu.n:~ 3 dlCougb 5.
.; '.;
I
(
I
\
I
. I 16
I
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
Variation ofCostl and Fill Demand Venus Wick Drain Spa~ing
nl
I I I
I
~I
I I I
I I I
MI
I I I
I I I
.1
"'-'1
I I I
I I I
S&ME Spillman Report.max
e
e
....
Variation of COltl Versus Surdulrge Time
S2SD.OOO
1240,000 .Sft wick 835 pst
.7ft wick 835 Pif
.5ft wick 1000 pst
S22D.llEIJ .7ft wiCk 1000 psf
I
I ~,lDJ
III
II:
u
.
I "
;: S18C,CXJO
...
r 8
S1GO,Da]
..
.
11.40.000
;
'120.000
S1OD.OCO
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I I I
I I I
'I
SURCtCAAaEnNE ~
lob No : 1131.()3.341
Date; MAY, 1003
. ,saME
Coa SWDIIWY by Surebar" Time
Spilmans Islud
Houaon Te
t~ 39'i1d
NOSNJWCI3/ A3.:1:4I~
T~"T7.IIRTA7
S&ME Spillman Report.max
FipJe No:
4
Q~:~7 T7a7/07/ea