ML19343B843
| ML19343B843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1980 |
| From: | Hussey J CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, BERKELEY, CA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343B832 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012300706 | |
| Download: ML19343B843 (87) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ . , _ . _ _ . - .- - __ ._ . . . . - . - . .. 4
- O l J
f L i i i i i r i DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HUSSEY , i ON BEHALF OF t HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY RE' TEX PIRG' ADDITIONAL CONTENTION 1/ BARGE SLIP 6 l l l l l Bonsosyog
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HUSSEY RE BARGE SLIP 1 Please state your name and position. Q. 2 I am a partner in A. My name is James R. Hussey. 3 Dames & Moore. 4 Please describe your educational background. Q. 5 A. I have B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering 6 from the University of California at Berkeley. 7 Q. Are you a Registered Professional Engineer? 3 A. Yes. I am a Professional Engineer registered in 9 the States of California and Texas. 10 Q. Are you a member of any professional organiza-11 tions? 12 A. I am a member of the American Society of Civil 13 Engineers, the International Society of Soil Mechanics and 14 Foundation Engineers, and the Atomic Industrial Forum. 15 Q. What role has Dames & Moore taken in the licensing 16 of the Allens Creek project? 17 A. Dames & Moore has been primarily responsible for 18 the evaluation of the Allens Creek site from the standpoint 19 of environmental and site suitability factors. I am the i Senior Representative of Dames & Moore in charge of this 20 l 21 continuing responsibility. 22 Q. 'P lease describe your areas of specialisation at l 23 Dames & Moore. 24 A. I have been employed by Dames & Moore since 1964, i i l I i t
1 and have specialized in the fields of geotechnical engineer-l 2 ing and project management. In the latter capacity I have 3 served as Project Manager for several petroleum industry 4 projects in Iran including the evaluation and monitoring of 5 preloading of a tank farm for LPG facilities, a foundation 6 investigation for a refinery and an investigation for a tank 7 farm and associated jetties in the Persian Gulf area. I 8 have been Project Manager of studies on several alternative 9 sites for petroleum handling facilities in the northeastern 10 United States. I have been the Project Manager for founda-11 tion investigations for a fertilizer complex in Indonesia 12 and a petrochemical complex in Louisiana. I have overseen 13 the preparation of an environmental report for an offshore l 14 crude oil unloading system which included supervision of a l l i 15 multi-disciplinary team of investigators in the fields 16 of biology, geology, land use, demography and hydrology. I 17 was Project Manager for the assessment of site character-18 istics for a nuclear power plant proposed in Iran which 19 included detailed site evaluations and comprehensive geo-20 technical and hydrological studies, including the coordina-21 tion of activities of over 100 professionals working from l 22 several offices in different counties. I was the Project 23 Manager for evaluation of geotechnical and hydrological 24 problems related to development of a large manufacturing / i l
1 community complex in Iran. I have participated in two major 2 studies pertaining to the development of tidelands in the 3 San Francisco Bay area. I have been involved in the compre-4 hensive site evaluation for the Allens Creek plant which 5 included directing and coordinating the efforts of a multi-l l 6 disciplinary project team including specialists in engineer-7 ing geology, seismology, foundation engineering, hydrology, 8 meteorology, demography, and land use. I also managed the 9 preparation,of the biological and radiological monitoring 10 programs for the Final Environmental Report and the environ-11 mental technical specifications for the South Texas Project 12 nuclear plant. 13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to respond to 15 TexPirg Additional Contention 1 which states: 16 S.4.5.l(3) on P9S. 4-14 of the Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FSFEIS) does 17 not adequately disclose and analyze the alternatives chosen for the transport of construction related 18 components to the site. In particular, the Applicant has not clearly determined whether waterway barge 19 transit will be used for transportation of large re-actor components to the site. 20 Such a transportation scheme would require dredg-21 ing and channelizing of sections of the San Bernard River or Brazos River. Such activity would disrupt 22 marine life in that river, create excessive turbidity and clouding of the water, destroy river bottom life, 23 require environmental destruction during spoil disposal and initiate secondary impact in the form of increased 24 industrial uses of the rivers. Petitioner contends 1 that Applicant's commitment to transportation of the rea tor vessel should be expressed more specifically 2 and that the Board should either deny the license wholly or require the alternative site action sought by 3 TexPirg in Contention 1 of the ' Stipulation between TexPirg and the NRC Staff', if the dredging and channel-4 Izing is necessary. I The final EIS does not specify how the reactor vessel will be transported to the construction site and 6 what means have to be taken to effect this transporta-l , tion. The probability that this transportation will have an environmental impact necessitates its coverage in a final EIS construction. For example, dredging, 8 widening or otherwise altering the Brazos River to bring the vessel to the site by barge would have an 9 environmental effect. 10 It is requested that the construction permit not be issued until the reactor vessel transportation is 11 sufficiently addressed. 12 In the process of addressing the contention I will also ad-13 dress the questions presented in the Atomic Safety and 14 Licensing Board's order of March 30, 1979. l 15 Q. Looking first at paragraph 1 of the contention, is 16 is true that Applicant has not selected the means whereby i 17 the reactor vessel will be delivered to the site? 18 A. No. The determination has been made that the l l 19 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) will be delivered by barge to 20 an offloading point and then transported overland to the site. 21 Q. Please describe the transportation route. l l 22 A. The RPV will be fabricated at the Chicago Bridge 23 and Iron Nuclear (CBIN) facility located on the Mississippi 24 River in Memphis, Tennessee. The vessel will be loaded on rw-- ~- y A 9 +r+ wg w-- -
1 to a barge at the CBIN facility, and will be unloaded at a 2 dock to be constructed on the San Bernard River and then 3 transported overland to the site. The-offloading area will 4 be located at approximately River Mile 26 of the San Bernard 5 River in Brazoria County. A barge slip will be excavated 6 into an area of about 3.5 acres in an 8-acre strip of land 7 situated between the river and Farm-to-Market Road (RM) 522. 3 The proposed offloading facility will be a temporary facility 9 to dock and offload the RPV from the barge. The facility 10 will consist of a barge slip, a work area, a storage area 11 for excavated materials, and an access road. It will be 12 constructed prior to arrival of the barge, and will be 13 removed and the land area restored after offloading is 14 completed. 15 The RPV will be moved from the barge to the plant site 16 on two multi-tired pneumatic trailers--one located under 17 each end of the vessel. Lowboy trailers will be used to 18 transport the closure head and other pieces of equipment 19 from the barge overland to the plant site. 20 Q. Turning to the second paragraph of the contention, 21 will this transportation scheme require channelization of 22 the Gan Bernard River? 23 A. No. Th4 San Bernard River channel is a navigation 24 project maintained by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. The l
4 l 1 channel is approximately 100 feet wide and 9 feet deep and 2 extends from the confluence of the San Bernard River and the 3 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to River Mile 26. The proposed 4 off loading site is slightly downstream of River Mile 26. 5 It is anticipated that the barge which will be used to 6 transport the vessel will be approximately 200 feet long and 7 either 50 or 54 feet wide, depending on the actual barge 8 selected. Fully loaded with the reactor pressure vessel, 9 closure head and other pieces of equipment, the barge will 10 draft between 7 feet 2 inches and 7 feet 5 inches, again 11 depending on the barge selected. Barges, approximately 200 12 feet long, 50 feet wide, and dra5 ting 7 feet 7 inches, have 13 made at least three trips up the river to the Phillips 14 Loading Dock, located across and slightly upstream of the 15 San Bernard River from the proposed barge slip. These 16 barges encountered no difficulty on the San Bernard River en 17 route to the Phillips Dock. Thus, no channelization of the 18 San Bernard River will be required in order to transport the 19 reactor pressure vessel to the barge unloading site. Accord-20 ingly, there should be no demonstrable environmental effects 21 associated with transporting the RPV to the offloading site. i Has Dames & Moore done an evaluation of the environ-l 22 Q. l 23 mental impacts associated with transportation of the RPV? l 24 A. Yes. Dames & Moore prepared a report in March, i i
1 1980, assessing the environmental impact of constructing the i 2 offloading site and the overland transport of the RPV to the 3 site. That report is submitted herewith as App. Exh. 4 (JRH-1). The report demonstrates that there will be no 5 significant environmental impacts associated with these two 6 activities. The report also discusses the alternative 7 transportation routes and demonstrates that the chosen route 8 is the most desirable. 9 Q. Please describe the excavation required for con-10 struction of the barge slip. l 11 A. Construction of the slip will involve the excava-12 tion and dredging of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of 13 clay and silty sand. The bulk of this excavation will take 14 place in the " dry" behind the existing riverbank, which will l 15 be left temporarily as a construction dike. A backhoe, 16 clamshell, dragline and/or suction dredge will be used at 17 the contractor's option for this phase of the excavation. 18 After excavation of the inland portion of the slip has been l 19 completed, the construction dike will be removed using a 20 clamshell and possibly a suction dredge. A minor amount of 21 dredging of the riverbed will also be required to connect 22 the barge slip with the river channel. This will be ac-23 complished using a clamshell and/or suction dredge working 24 e ntinu usly to minimize the duration of increased turbidity l 1 j
\
1 levels in the water. 2 It is presently planned for all excavated materials to 3 be stored at the site adjacent to the barge slip. Dry 4 materials excavated from above the water table will be used 5 to construct dikes to form sedimentation ponds, which will 6 be used for storage of all saturated materials. Water 7 removed from the slip area during construction or restora-8 tion will not.be allowed to flow directly into the river, 9 but will be pumped into a sediment pond. This sediment 10 pond, incorporating an appropriate wier structure, will be 11 used to achieve removal of most suspended solids. 12 Q. What is the impact of this construction activity? 13 A. The construction of the barge slip and restoration 14 of this area will cause a temporary localized increase in 15 the turbidity of the San Bernard River at this location. 16 Some turbidity will occur during dredging at the entrance of 17 the barge slip, to a lesser degree during construction of 18 the slip, and later when the slip is restored by the replace-19 ment of fill soils. At the time of initial excavation, the 20 duration of increased turbidity will be minimized by main-21 taining a dike at the riverbank, between onland excavation 22 and the river. Increased turbidity in the river would only 23 occur during the latter stages of excavation when the dike 24 is removed and the channel is dredged between the barge slip 1
1 and the river channel. 2 The area to be excavated for the barge slip is a zone 3 of deposition. Consequently, the combination of deposited 4 materials and reduced river current could make this a de-5 sirable habitat for spawning of some fish and nursery for 6 other juvenile fishes. A small portion of this habitat t -, would be temporarily removed by dredging the barge channel 3 to the existing navigation channel. The length of river 9 directly affected is expected to be about 200 to 300 feet on 10 one side, or less than 0.10 percent of the estimated 50 to 11 75 miles of similar habitat. When compared to the total 12 habitat of the San Bernard River, the impact is insignif-13 icant. Moreover, the area should rehabilitate naturally l 14 within 3 to 5 years after abandonment. Thus, the overall 15 impact of the excavation will be minimal. l 16 Q. Please describe the impacts associated with over-17 land transport of the RPV. 18 A. Overland transport of the reactor vessel will also 19 have an insignificant impact. Traversing the overland 20 portion of the route will involve crossing a number of 21 creeks. Most of the bridges or culverts which presently l 22 span these creeks can be matted and/or shared and used to 23 support the loaded transporter. - However, the concrete l 24 bridge on State Highway 36 which crosses Varner Creek cannot l l I 1 l g_ l
l l 1 be satisfactorily shored and consequently must be bypassed. 2 This will require the construction of a short, temporary 3 bypass road and culvert beside the existing bridge. 4 The bypass required at the Varner Creek bridge on 5 Highway 36 will result in a temporary disturbance of ap-6 An additional area of ap-proximately 0.9 acres of land. 7 proximately 0.4 acres may be disturbed as work space adja- . 8 cent to the temporary road bed. These areas will be restored 9 af ter passage of the RPV. The impact of crossing Varner 10 Creek is both temporary and insignificant. 11 Q. Would you please state your opinion about the 12 overall environmental impact of transporting the RPV to the 13 site? 14 A. Based upon the study which we have performed, which 15 has been submitted with this testimony as Exhibit JRH-1, it 16 is clear that the construction of the barge slip will have 17 only an insignificant impact. Construction activities are l 18 temporary in nature and disturbed areas will be restored l l 19 after use. Whatever minor impacts may result from such I 20 construction are easily mitigated. 21, Q. Does that completa your testimony? l 22 A. Yes. 23 i ! 24 l l l l
C
-.. '~ - .
y, g
, 7 ..
. , _ i
. .. . . . .. -. i
.g g
- ~_
p, l M - .
% , T. ,p aim
' ' I ..
f ..
~-
+-
_ . . W! . _ . _ ?- . . . . . s
. - . . . 9 s
s..
, p
+
4
-..s
.. ..i.
1
~ ~
l , . ,
?;. .
- -- L-' .
REPORT ENVIROSMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSES TO NRC QUE STIONS TRANSPORTATION OF TRE REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING & PCM ER COMPANY Dames & Moore . . _ . Applicant Exrubi t No. _ _ . _ (JRE-1)
l i l l l 6 l l I I l REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS TRANSPORTATION OF THE REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING & PGER COMPANY i t i t Dames & Moore l 4490-057-12 MARQi 1980
, - - , - - - . - - , . _.%---.,.ww,_w__.,,.- . . m.w.- ._w.w,,,me,,-w.,e,,,e,,%- , w -..e-we--r g.---- --'T
REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS TRANSPORTATION OF THE REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age, 1.0 I NTRO D U CT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF REP 0RT........................................ I
1.2 DESCRIPTION
OF PROJECT ELEMENTS..........e............... I 1.3
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................... 2 2.0 BARGE OF FLO ADING FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 S IT E DE SC RIPTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- 2. 2 B ARGE SL IP CO NSTRU CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 0FFLOADING PROCEDURES.................................... 8 2.4 DEC O MMIS S I O NI NG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5 I MPA CT EV AL U AT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.0 OVERLAND R0UTE................................................ 15
3.1 DESCRIPTION
.............................................. 15 3.2 VARNE R CREEK BRIDGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.1 B a s e line Co ndi t io ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 16 3.2.2 Cons truct io n of C ros sing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.3 Impa c t Eval ua t io n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 I 3.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ALONG R0UTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 l i 4.0 ALTERNATIVES.................................................. 21 l 4.1 B RAZOS RIVER-EAST C0LUMBIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 l 4.2 BRAZOS RIVER-WALLIS...................................... 22 4.3 C OLO R ADO RIV E R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.4 S AN B E RNA RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.5
SUMMARY
.................................................. 26 I 1 l 5.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCY CONTACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 i [ 5.1 A GEN CY C0 NTA CT S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2 PE RMIT REQU IR EMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 l 6.0 NRC QUE ST IONS AND RE SPO NS E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 l L IT ERATU RE C IT ED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 1 l l 1
~1 i
LIST OF FIGURES Alterna tive RPV T rans po rta tion Reutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1 .. I i Proposed Barge O f floading Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure 1 A
~'
Proposed Ove rland Rout e - RPV Trans po rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure IB Proposed Barge Of floading Facility and Vegetation Map. .. .. .. .. .. Figure 2 7 Bathymetric Profiles - Barge Offloading Facility................ Figure 3
. .a l
Construction Details - Barge Of floading Facility. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .Figurc 4 , I Va rne r C r e ek Bypa s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F igur e 5 a Cons truction Details - Varner Creek Bypas s. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . Figure 6 ]
.]
Construction Schedule, Barge Offloading Facility and Varner Creek Bypass............................................. Figure 7 ~; i Pe rmitt ing Schedule , RPV T rans po rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 8 _} l 1 1 A a l i I l i l i I i
-ii-i ,- + , , . - - , . , . - - ,. - , , . - . , , - , . . , , , ,, , , , ,
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT This report was prepared in response to questions submitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding potential environmental impacts associated with transporting of the Reactor Pressure t(essel (RPV) fram the San Bernard River to the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station (ACNGS) site. Baseline descriptions of the proposed barge slip and over-land route were developed from literature supplemented by site surveys.
l l A separate section has been devoted to an evaluation of alternative routes. The questions that served as the basis for this report are addressed in Chapter 6.0. Responses, for the most part, are contained in the text of the report; reference to the location of responses can be found in Chapter 6.0.
- 1. 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ELEMENTS The RPV will be essembled at a construction yard in another state and transported via barge to the Freeport, Texas area, and hence up the San Bernard River to the proposed barge slip. The elements of this j report are limited to the offloading site and overland transport to the ACNGS site.
The RPV will be mounted and shipped on a lifting and upending rig. The total weight when mounted on the overland trailer will be approxi-mately 1,190 tons. The vessel head, with attached rig, will weigh about 105 tons; and, although it will be shipped on the barge, it will be transported to ACNGS on a lowboy, separate from the RPV. The RPV has a diameter of 22 feet; a vertical clearance of approxi-mately 30 feet will be required when mounted on the barge. The barge will draft about 8 feet when loaded. When the RPV and rig are mounted on l
i I, the overland transporter, a vertical clearance of 30 to 35 feet will be required during land travel, depending on the trailer selected. ]; The offloading area will be located at River Mile 26 of the San q Bernard River in Brazoria County. The San Bernard River channel is j maintained by the Corps of Engineers up to River Mile 26. A barge slio _ will be excavated into an area of about 3.5 acres in an 8-acre strip of land situated between the river and Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 522. The RPV will be loaded onto two multi-tired pneumatic trailers, arranged in series, for transport to the ACNGS site.
- 1. J Alternative RPV transportation routes are presented on Figure The proposed location for the offloading gite and the route selected for overland transport are shown in more detail on Figures lA and IB, .j respectively.
1.3 SLMiARY OF FINDINdS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed site for offloading the RPV and overland route were selected initially on the basis of technical feasibility and economic considerations. Environmental issues were also evaluated and no significant differences detected. The three river route alternatives, including the selected route on the San Bernard River, are located at the end of navigation projects. The viable, alternatives that were evaluated to allow selection of the preferred route each included. river transport along only those
^
stretches of the river (s) normally maintained by the Corps. The only significant environmental impacts would be associated primarily with dredging required at each of the barge offloading sites. Therefore, a comparison of feasible alternatives indicates no substantive difference in environmental issues between the routes evaluated.
.. . -. . -- -__ . ._. _ _ .. - _- - . . . _ . . . . _ .. . = . . . )
i 's M i Overland travel to the ACNGS site will require constructing a , 4 bypass at the Varner Creek bridge along Highway 36. Traffic impacts have been niminized by selecting a route that goes through as few towns as possible. t I 4 E r 4 P' i 1. 1 l l l l l I ( _3_ l
n 2.0 BARGE OFFLOADING FACILITY
i i
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION l The proposed barge offloading facility will be located on the I east bank of the San Bernard River on an 8-acre tract between the river
~1 and FM 522 in Brazoria County, Texas (Figures IA and 2). The site is in j a fluvial woodland vegetative comn:anity within the Gulf Prairies and Marshes Land Resources Area of Texas. Three major land use categories ]
.J occupy appro'ximately 84 percent of the land surface in Brazoria County (total acreage approximately 962,000 acres); agricultural, rangeland/ tame l pasture, and woodlands. The fluvial woodlands constitute approximately i 173,200 acres, or 18 percent of the land area (Soil Conservation Service, ,
1979). They are characterized by water-tolerant hardwoods such as pecan, j hickory, hackberry, elm, and several oak species (McGowen, et al. ,1976). Several houses and two mobile homes are located adjacent to FM 522 just north of the site. Several other houses have been constructed along the east bank of the San Bernard River southeast of the site. The town of Sweeny lies approximately 2.75 miles southwest of the site, while West ! Columbia is just over 3 miles northeast of the site. The proposed b rge slip will be constructed on soils classified as . Asa silty clay loam. This soil type covers approximately 3.8 percent of the soil resources of Brazoria County. This is a nonsaline, loacy soil on nearly level topography, or floodplains, and supports a native vege-tation of hardwoods. The soil has a high potential for cropland; but, due to its position on the floodplain, flooding can restrict the cropland potential of this soil (Soil Conservation Service,.1979). A site survey was conducted in February 1980 to characterize the vegetation of the site. The proposed site is characteristic of the fluvial woodlands. The presence of pecan trees (Carya illinoensis)
indicates the site may have been a pecan grove at one time. This assumption is based on the regular spacing among trees. Diversity increases toward the riverbank, where beech (Fagus grandifolia), dogwood (Cornus florida), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), beauty-berry (Callicarpa Americana), and especially palmetto (Sabal minor) become more common. The riverbanks are densely populated with trees, predominately sycamore (Plantaus occidentalis). Greenbriar (Smilax sp.) and vines are common along the bank and in the upland area. The herb layer is sparsely populated with one or two species of grass. Wild
~
garlic (Allium sp.) is common, especially in sandier areas. The proposed site is characterized by varying topographic relief, featuring a central ridge with several associated shallow depressions (Figure 2). Palmetto occurs throughout the site but is more common in the depressions. Two shallow depres sions , with occasional standing water, are located on the property. Both appear to have been developed from man's r .es and are dominated with sedges (Cyperus sp.) around the margins. .ne larger depression also is colonized by a stand of water parsley (Sium sp.). Water in the smaller depression drains via a small channel into the larger depression, which in turn drains into the San Bernard River. Drainage is through a ditch approximately 10 feet deep that appears to have been excavated recently. Other portions of the uplands have been cleared and partially graded within the past year. The area has a good potential to support a woodland type of wildlife habitat, such as deer, squirrel, turkey, armadillo, rabbit and raccoon. No wildlife species or signs were observed during the February 1980 site survey. Because of the narrow shape and proximity of the site to FM 522, j it is doubtful wildlife utilize the site to its fullest potential.
~ _ - -
The San Bernard River is a Corps of Engineers project and is dredged periodically. The Corps maintains the channel to a location immediately '
'l upstream of the barge slip location. Therefore, no dredging in addition to that directly at the barge slip will be required. ]
.I There is a paucity of fisheries data on che San Bernard River ,
(Colby, 1979; Wilson and Ball, 1979, personal communications). There- _) fore, the potential of spawning or nurse ry grounds occurring within , the proposed barge site cannot be assessed precisely. Some sport fishing } may occur because of an unimproved oost launch on the southwest side of the FM 522 bridge. Sport fish most likely to occur in the area include ! I catfish, sunfish, white bass and crappie. Car and towfin, generally considered rough fish, also could occur in the area. l
.I A cultural resources survey of the site was conducted on November 20 q and 21, 1979. No cultural resources were detected during the course of the survey. One site in the area (the Sweeny Plantation) has been nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. _
This site, however, is located on the west bank of the San Bernard River and will not be affected by the proposed project (Texas Archeological f Survey, 1979).
- 2. 2 BARGE SLIP CONSTRUCTION The proposed offloading facility will be a temporary f acility to a dock and offload the RPV from the barge. The facility will consist of a barge slip, a work area, a storage area for excavated materials, and an ,
access road (Figure 2). It will be constructed prior to arrival of the barge, and will be removed and the land area restored after offloading is completed. Construction of the offloading facility will begin at least seven months prior to the scheduled date for equipment delivery at the plant
site. It will begin first by clearing and grubbing the approximately 3.5 acres required for the facility. Construction of the slip will invo ive the excavation and dredging of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of clay and silty sand. The bulk of this excavation will take place in the " dry" behind the existing river-bank, which will be lef t temporarily as a construction dike. A backhoe, clamshell, dragline and suction dredge will be used at the contractor's option for this phase of the excavation. After excavation of the inland portion of the slip has been completed, the construction dike will be removed using a clamshell and possibly a suction dredge. A minor amount of dredging of the riverbed will also be required to connect the barge slip with the river channel. This will be accomplished using a clamshell and/or suction dredge working continuously to minimize the duration of Jncreased turbidity levels in the water. The San Bernard River is a Corps of Engineers navigation project to a point just upstream from the proposed barge location. The channe; is maintained at a depth of 9 feet for a width of 100 feet. The natural channel slopes to the dredged channel from the bank (Figure 3). It is presently planned for all excavated materials to be stored at the site adjacent to the barge slip. Dry materials excavated from above the water table will be used to form the walls of sediment ponds, which in turn will be used for storage of all saturated materials. Water removed from the slip area during construction or restoration will not be allowed to flow directly into the river, but will be pumped into a sediment pond. This sediment poed, incorporating an appropriate wier structure, will be used to achieve removal of most suspended solids.
- It is planned that the sidewalls, endwalls, and the bottom of the slip will be lined with riprap aggregate to provide erosion protection.
Wall riprap will probably consist of stones placed over either a plastic i (
l ! 7 l filter sheet (designed for erosion control) or a 6-inch filter blanket of well graded gravel. Aggregate for the slip bottom will consist of
~
approximately 12 inches of pea gravel ranging in size from 1/2-inch to 3/4-inch in diameter (Figure 4). ~ The work area adjacent to the slip will have a surface of approxi- - mately 12 inches of compacted gravel. It will be sloped slightly toward . the barge slip for drainage purposes. 7 I. During the construction and operation of the facility, all con-tractors working on the site will be required to take precautionary measures to prevent any spilling of oil or other petroleum distilates. Appropriate materials for cleaning up spills will be required to be stored at the site for immediate use should a spill occur. q Electrical service will be provided to the offloading site from ! existing transmission circuits along FM 522. Power is presently avail- , able to meet the expected needs of the barge facility construction and operation. Several poles will be set within the site but will be removed during restoration operations. 2.3 0FFLOADING PROCEDURES J i Once the barge has been properly docked (stern end inland) and j secured in the slip, the attached river tugs will be released. Ballast a will then be added to the barge tanks allowing the barge to sink until it rests on the bottom of the slip. In order to provide the support and 4 stability required during the offloading procedure, additional ballast will be added until the barge tanks have been filled. After the ballast-
~
ing operations have been, completed, select gravel backfill will be compacted around the stern of the barge to provide a stable offloading ramp between the barge deck and the access road (Figure 4). Backfill material for the compacted ramp will consist of a well graded, aggregate material with no more than 5 percent fines (material passing through a 200 sieve). At the offloading contractor's option, a side access ramp may be constructed near the bow of the barge to connect the work area with the barge deck. The major components to be offloaded include the RPV and the reactor vessel closure head. Other ancillary equipment may also be offloaded. Lowboy trailers will be used to transport the reactor vessel closure head and other smaller pieces of equipment from the barge overland to the plant site. Two methods are being considered for offloading the head onto the lowboy. The first involves raising the head with hydraulic jacks and lowering it onto the lowboy after the lowboy has been posi-tiened under the head. The second entails using a large mobile crane to lift the head from the barge deck onto the lowboy. Offloading time and equipment availability will be major considerations in selecting the method to be used. The RPV will be removed from the barge to the plant site on two multi-tired pneumatic trailers-one located under each end of the vessel. It is planned that the RPV will be raised above the barge deck to a sufficient height to allow the trailers to be driven under the load. The load will then be lowered onto the trailers which will subsequently be driven off the barge and overland to the site. In all probability, the l l method used for raising the RPV will involve the use of a large hydraulic i Jacking system. The particular system will be selected at a later date. l l All work will be performed in compliance with the requirements of the ANSI N45.2.15 (proposed) and industrial safety requirements of the I State of Texas. i ( ! 1 l -
.i Approximate y 10 working days will be required to offload the
~
vessel from the barge, and an additional 3 working days will be required for dismantling the rigging equipment and cleaning up. Another alternative being considered would involve the RPV being . shipped on the barge already loaded on the trailers. This would elimi- _ nate the need for the large hydraulic jacking system, and would reduce the required offloading time by several days.
.]
After the barge has been completely offloaded and cleanup operations involving the barge deck are finished, the aggregate ramps will be l excavated using a backhoe, clamshell, or drag line, as required to release the barge. The barge will then be deballasted and removed from , the barge slip by river tugs. The inside surface of the barge tanks will ] be painted with a primer and finish coats totaling 6 mils thickness. The ., I surface will be a clean, smooth, dry, glossy finish. Any water taken on or discharged as ballast will be San Bernard River water. There will be no contamination during deballasting operations. a
- 2. 4 DECOMMISSIONING ;
Restoration of the facility will commence within a few weeks af ter the equipment has been offloaded from the barge. It will be completed J within three months after that date. ,
]
The facility will be removed (including riprap aggregate four feet below the ordinary high water line), and the original bank restored. This will be accomplished by first constructing a dike across the mouth 1 of the slip using the stored excavation materials. Subsequently, the riprap on the walls of the barge slip will be removed and the slip will be filled with the remaining stored excavation -materials. Any water removed by dewatering operations or water trapped behind the dike will not be allowed to flow directly into the river.
The land area behind the bank will be compacted and graded to preexisting contours to the extent practicable, except that the access road or a portion of it may be lef t in place as a permanent improvement to the site. The land probably will be sold once the site has been reclaimed.
- 2. 5 1MPACT EVALUATION The southern bald eagle (Haliaeetus h leucocephalus) and Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) are two bird species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that could occur at the proposed barge site. The American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis), a reptile, also could occur in the area. (Federal Register, January 17, 1979) During the site survey in February 1980, there were no sitings of the three listed species. No eagle nests were observed in the vicinity of the site. There was no indication of alligatore on the 8-acre site.
Texas has an additional list of threatened (protected) nongame species) which lists two species that could probably occur and one species that could possibly occur in Brazoria County (Potter, 1980, personal communication). These include:
- 1. Louisiana Milk Snake (Lampropelti triangulum amaura)
- 2. Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)
- 3. River Darter (Hadropterus shumardi)
The project should not have any impact .on species of threatened or endangered status from the federal list. There are no confirmed catches or sightings of the three state-listed species for the site , area. Therefore, it is anticipated the project would not have an l l impact on these species. l Construction of the barge offloading site will be initiated by clearing and grubbing approximately 3.5 acres of the 8-acre tract of l ! ,~ _ ___ _ _ . . _ _ _
l i 7 '
-6 land. This clearing will accommodate the barge slip, access road, and dredge material stock piling area. Impacts to the vegetation from these l activities will be limited to removal of a few trees and palmettos.
I The project will impact the Asa silty clay loam, which is classified ! as a prime farmland soil (Grenwelge, 1980, personal communication). __ This soil comprises approximately 3.8 percent of the surface soil resources in Brazoria County (Soil Conservation Service,1979). The site is not currently used for agricultural production, and does not appear to have been used for agriculture. In any case, the 3.5-acre area to be disturbed represents less than 0.01 percent of the Asa soil in Brazoria
]"
County. n i A manmade depression and associated wetland occurs in the area that i will be excavated for the of floading ramp. While this depression could , contain water, it is not considered a natural wetland resource. Only a 2 small portion of the depression will be af facted. The proposed barge slip site is located adjacent to the San Bernard River. The elevations on the site vary from approximately sea level (Elevation 0.0) at the water's surface to about Elevation 20 on the uppermost part of the proposed access road. The river at the site receives some minor tidal ef fects, and the ordinary high water is esti- - mated at Elevation 0.0. The construction of the barge slip and res to ration of this area will cause a temporary localized increase in the turbidity of the ! San Bernard River at this loca tion. Some turbidity will occur during dredging at the entrance of the barge slip, to a lesser degree during
~
construction of the slip, and later when the slip is resto red by the replacement of fill soils. At the time of initial excavation, the duration of increased turbidity will be minimized by maintaining a dike - at the rive rbank, between onland excavation and the river. Increased
l l turbidity in the river would only occur during the latter stages of excavation when the dike is removed and the channel is dredged between the barge slip and the river channel. Soils excavated for the ramp and barge slip will be stockpiled onsite for subsequent use in restoring the barge slip area. A sedimen-tation pond (identified on Figure 2 as " excavation material storage") will be constructed to collect and retain runoff from saturated mate-rials. Saturated soils deposited in the sedimentation pond will be allowed to evaporate and drain. After sedimentation, surface water will be decanted and discharged over a weir to a lined ditch draining to the San Bernard River. Because the excavated or dredged soils will be stockpiled for several months, the slopes will be seeded with grasses for stabilization as necessary to minimize the af fects of wind and water erosion. These messi. ires, combined with the retention of water until significant sedimen~ tation has occurred, will minimize the impacts associated with disposal of dredge material onsite. After removal of the dike to complete excavation of the barge s lip , some minor turbidity may also result from the final placement of riprap along the bottom of the barge slip and around the barge. As construction plans have yet to be finalized, however, it is possible that most of this riprap would be placed before the dike is excavated. Some incressed turbidity in the river will also cccur during restoration of the barge slip; the impacts will be mit.h;:ed, however, due to the methods of construction that are proposed. First, an earthen dike will be placed between the river edge and the barge slip area. Prior to backfilling behind the dike, it will probably be necessary to dewater this area. This water would be conveyed to the sedimentation pond to allow most suspended solids to settle before discharging over the weir to the river. Only minor amounts of sediment are anticipated to l
l i 7 i rea'h the river. The area behind the dike would then be backfilled with soils stored onsite since excavation. No increased turbidity in the river would result from this operation. As described above, the increases in river turbidity will be localized, short-term effects, and probably visible only for a short , distance downstream. No prolonged adverse effects are expected on downstream users of the San Bernard River. - The removal of soil from the barge slip area will not include selected segregation of soils by type. The soils, which are basically 'l clay or sandy clay, will thus be mixed when used to backfill the barge J slip. This change in in situ soils would probably not affect the ground - water recharge capabilities of the small barge slip area. . The site lies within the 100 year floodplain. However, it is not anticipated that the diked area for excavated soil storage will significantly affect the higher magnitude flows (e.g. ,100 year, 50 year
^
floods) to an extent where the increase in flood levels before and af ter the dike can be quantified.
.J The area to be excavated for the barge slip is a zone of deposition. --
Consequently, the combination of deposited materials and reduced river ; current could make this a desirable habitat for spawning some fish and nursery for other juvenile fishes. A small portion of this habitat would j be temporarily removed by dredging the barge channel to the existing navigation channel. The length of river directly af fected is expected to f be about 200 to 300 feet on one side, or less than 0.10 percent of the estimated 50 to 75 miles of similar habitat. When compared to the total l habitat of the San Bernard River, the impact is considered insignificant. The area should rehabilitate naturally within 3 to 5 years af ter abandon- . I ment. . .;
Based on the cultural resources survey, the project would not impact known archeological or historical sites. There would be no impact on the Sweeny Plantation because it is located on the west bank of the San Bernard River, several hundred yards away from the proposed project. t i I f l t l I l l t t
1 i i 1 1i
" fl 3.0 OVERLAND ROUTE 1
6
3.1 DESCRIPTION
J 7 The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) will be removed from the barge to j the plant site on two multi-tired pneumatic trailers, arranged in series, _ and two prime movers, one pushing and the other pulling the two trailers. . Af ter the reactor is loaded onto the transporter and hauled' up the access road to FM 522, it will be transported approximately 52 miles over ] existing paved roads to the plant site. The maximum transporter speed will be approximately 3 miles per hour, and it is estimated that this overland journey will take approximately 12 to 15 working days. It is
'I 1 anticipated that travel will occur only during tbs oaylirht hours, except
-- )
possibly on portions of the route which contain only few obstructions _j (i.e., culverts, overhead lines, branches, etc.). Rest stops will be 1 planned at 10- to 15-mile intervals.
]
Delays in excess of one day may occur at a rest stop to allow for cons truction, or clearing of obstacles. Rest stops will consist of a widened shoulder, private or public road, or other suitable place where , t the loaded transporter can be stored without obstructing traf fic. Every attempt will be made to utilize existing sites which would require little , I or no upgrading for this purpose, but it is anticipated that several of j the rest stop sites may have to be cons tructed. Appropriate traffic 1 control devices (lights, flares, etc.) and personnel will be maintained g during the overnight stops. Traf fic control for the overland movement will be handled by each of the af fected county sherif f's departments working in conjunction with the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transpo rtation. Traffic will be detoured around the loaded transporter using other state and county roads as detours. Over most of the route there are several good roads available for detouring light vehicles. Detour routes for
heavier vehicles, i.e., semi-tractor traile rs , will in some cases be longer, but will not be unreasonable in length. All detours will be clearly marked along the full length of the detour, and traf fic control personnel will be stationed as required at strategic points to effect proper use of the detours. t' Contact has been made with highway officials concerning travel on state and county highways. Formal application for permits will be submitted approximately 8 months prior to the scheduled date for RPV delivery at the plant site. Plans for traffic control will also be submitted at this time. All af fected county, city, and state of ficials will be contacted prior to the formal generation of these plans to determine their requirements and recommendations. Traversing the overland portion of the route will involve crossing a numbe r of creeks. Most of the bridges or culverts which presently span these creeks can be matted and/or shored and used to support the loaded trans porte r. However, the concrete bridge on State Highway 36 which crosses Varner Creek cannot be satisfactorily shored and conse-quently must be bypassed. This will require the construction of a short, temporary bypass road and culvert beside the existing bridge. 3.2 VARNER CREEK BRIDGE 3.2.1 Baseline Conditions I Transportation along Highway 36 will require bypassing the bridge that crosses Varner Creek north of West Columbia (see Figure 5). This is a small, turbid creek that flows from northwest to southeast, emptying ( into the Brazos River near West Columbia. l Varner Creek is surrounded by agricultural (crop and pasture) land und is characterized by a narrow band of hardwoods (predominately l I . - - . - .--- --. .- __ .-. - - _ . _
m l willows (Salix sp.) on both sides of the bridge. A small stand of cattail (Typha sp.) has colonized the creekbed on both sides of the bridge. A large live oak tree (Quercus virginiana) occurs approximately j 25 feet from the road downstream of the bridge. The fill of the bridge _ approaches has been stabilized with grass by the highway department. Wildlife in the Varner Creek area should consist primarily of ] i .; l small mammals, such as rabbit, raccoon, armadillo and assorted rodents. Amphibians should include the more common frogs and toads, and some salmanders. No threatened or endangered vertebrates are expected in the - area, including the American alligator. Because Varner Creek drains into , the Brazos River, the fish species should be similar to those found in f the Brazos. These include small fishes, such as mosquito fish, top- , minnows, sunfish and tidewater silversides. A few larger roughfish, such j as shad, carp and gar, could occur in the deeper pools in the creek. No threatened or endangered species of aquatic animals are expected to occur in the Varner Creek drainage area.
~
3.2.2. Construction of Crossing The bypass road will be constructed by removing undesirable load _i bearing materials and backfilling with compacted sand and gravel. Additional compacted fill will be placed as required for proper vertical alignment of the bypass road and culvert with the existing roadway (Figures 5 and 6). .
.)
'The culvert will consist of two 48-inch-diameter, corrugated metal
'l '
pipes. Prior to their installation, the creekbed will be excavated to a ! depth of approximately two feet and backfilled with a compacted, well l l graded granular msterial which will serve as a bedding for the culvert . pipes. After the corrugated pipes have been placed on the bedding, additional compacted gravel fill will be placed around and over them , (Figure 6). I i l w . , , . - . - p ,m, p
, . , - . , .4y. - - - , w y ,
l The corrugated metal pipes are sized to accommodate ordinary creek i flows. In order to insure that the culvert installation does not overly restrict creek flow during possible periods of high flow, the backfill around and over the pipes will be installed in two phases. The top of the first phase of backfilling will be limited to approximately three feet above the existing streambed. This work will be done at the time of the corrugated metal pipe installation. The second phase of the back-filling will take place a few days prior to the time when the bypass is to be used. During this phase, backfill will be added over the streambed as required to complete the bypass road. Removal of the bypass installation will commence within 24 hours af ter the RPV and transporter have traversed it. The corrugated metal pipes and all backfill above the level of the original streambed will be removed and the creek restored as nearly as is practicable to its original condition. Removal of second phase backfill over the creek area will be completed within a few days af ter the pas sage of the RPV and total restoration of the creek will be completed within two months af ter that time. During the brief period of time when the second phase back-fill material, i.e. , material over three feet above the original stream-bed, is in place , sufficient men and equipment (including lights for working at night) will be maintained near the bypass site as required to effect the timely removal of backfill from the streambed should high water conditions arise. Restoration activities will also include seeding l of all vegetated areas above the ordinary high water level which have been disturbed during the bypass installation. 3.2.3. Impact Evaluation The bypass required at the Varner Creek bridge on Highway 36 will l result in a temporary disturbance of approximately 0.9 acres of land. An additional area of approximately 0.4 acres may be disturbed as work space adjacent to the temporary road bed. l l
l t
.)
Construction of the bypass will require removal of one partly destroyed, live oak tree of considerable size. Two steel culverts will ] I be installed at Varner Creek. Some sedimentation will cause a tamporary increase in turbidity both during installation and removal of the cul- , verts. This should not adversely af fect aquatic habitat because fish will leave the turbid water and benthic organisms should recolonize in a _, short period. There will be no impact to threatened or endangered species. .. The bypass will be constructed within an existing highway right-of-way. Fill material will be removed once the RPV has made the bypass.
]
J The disturbed area will be reseeded with grass seeding mixtures utilized by the Highway Department. q a 3.3 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ALONG FJUTE , Based on a January 1980 visual survey of the proposed overland route, it appears that, except for the Varner Creek bypass, no trees will have to be removed to transport the RPV. The trimming of some trees will be necessary to provide a vertical clearance of approximately 30 to 35 , J feet. Trimming of trees, except perhaps very minor trimming, will occur only along the stretch of FM 522 between the of floading facility and State Hwy. 36. Here a number of large branches will have to be cut i in order to allow passage of the RPV. All trimming ope ra tion; will be performed using chainsaws, tree saws, or other appropriate equipment which will ef fect a clean, smooth cut. All cuts will be coated with an appropriate mixture which will l protect the trees against attack by insects and disease. > l t The methods for handling traf fic detours and coordinating with local and state agencies were delineated in Section 3.1. General impacts associated with the disruption of traffic. will be temporary, and mini- ! mized by the controls provided. The most impact on traffic would be t l l
expected at those few locations where the vessel caravan crosses a major traf fic route. The duration of the crossing movement is expected to be approximately 10 to 20 minutes. Therefore, no significant impact on traffic movement is expected from the overland transportation of the RPV. l l The power and telephone companies with service lines crossing the l l proposed route have indicated that if service lines to more populated areas, such as towns, must be temporarily removed to allow passage of the RPV, service to those areas can be provided by existing alternate circuits. Thus, more populated areas are not expected to experience any interruptions in electric or telephone se rvice. The only users expected to experience service interruptions will be a few isolated residences or businesses in rural areas. These interruptions will be experienced as the transporter moves along its route, and are expected to last between 15 minutes to 1 hour. Significant preplanning will take place before transportation of the RPV begins. The movement of the RPV will be coordinated with the service companies to minimize service j interruption. Presently, the only railroad crossing which may require modification is the crossing at State Highway 36 and the ACNGS site. Such modifi-l cation would consist of placing aggregate fill to provide ramps from ! Highway 36 up to the railroad, and from the railroad to the construction i i access road. The ramp fill will be removed af ter passage of the RPV. l The movement of the RPV across the railroad will be coordinated with the railroad company. However, the construction of the ramp fill and the passage of the RPV are not expected to interrupt railroad use. l l
1 i 4.0. ALTERNATIVES l The selection of the transportation route for the RPV was performed in 1974 (Ame rican/ Marks). Initially, six route combinations were con-sidered. The final route selection process resulted in the evaluation of four routes (see Figure 1), including the selected route. Each of 1 the final four routes requires a combination of water transport to a designated offloading area and overland transport to the ACNGS site. , A The two routes initially rejected were entirely overland from
~1 Freeport, Texas. Each was eliminated on the basis of technical feasi- ]
bility. One route required rail transport from Freeport to the site; however, the roadbed was not in condition to support the load, and
~
vertical clearance was not sufficient to permit passage of the RPV. Another method would have been to load the RPV onto highway transporters at Freeport and move entirely overland to the ACNGS site. The only facilities that exist for of floading the RPV at Freeport are on the east bank of the Brazos River. Because the ACNGS site is on the west side of d the Brazos River, offlading at Freeport would require crossing the river. There are no bridges on the Brazos River that would support the load. The ref ore, movement overland (by highway or rail) from Freeport - was rejected. The remaining four routes were evaluated on the basis of: 1) suffi-cient water depth in the rivers; 2) movement upriver to a reasonable offloading site; 3) availability of land for construction of a barge slip; 4) the presence of overhead obstacles on the rivers; 5) minimizing land transport through populated ' areas; and, 6) limiting the number of stream crossings. Ar evaluation of these routes, and alt.cnative combinations, is presenud in the following sectio ns. Each of these routes, including the two utilizing different offloading locations on the Brazos River, is shown on Figure 1.
1 l 4.1. BRAZOS RIVER-EAST COLUMBIA l The Brazos River-East Columbia route, would require water transport to the Highway 35 bridge near East Columbia. This route is a Corps of Engineers navigation project with only two overhead bridges. Clearance beneath the bridges would be sufficient for travel during normal water conditions; however, travel would be prohibited under high water condi-tions . This route would require dredging a barge slip adjacent to the bridge in a manner similar to the construction currently being planned. Impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat would be similar to those expected at the selected barge slip site on the San Bernard River. Overland travel along this route would be approximately 50 miles, requiring movement through East Columbia, as well as the entire town of West Columbia. Numerous overhead obstacles (traffic lights and utility lines) would be encountered. Such traf fic impacts would be more severe than along the proposed overland route. 4.2 BRAZOS RIVER-WALLIS The Brazos River-Wallis route would reduce the number of overland miles from 50 to 9. However, water depths are not as well defined in the Brazos River north of East Columbia (the Corps projec* ends at East Columbia). Sufficient water depth for the barge would only be available following periods of heavy rains. Unde r such conditions , however, problems would then be encountered with vertical clearances of 13 bridges along the route. The only way to assure sufficient water depth would be to purchase water from upstream rese rvoirs . This approach would have necessitated control of river flows, which may not have been feasible, and could result in an inef ficient use of water resources. In addition, the Brazos River north of East Columbia contains some bends with small radii; this probably would require dredging to navigate i l
7 I m + 1 some sections of the river. Such dredging would require disposal of the dredged material and would result in additional sediment load during dredging operations. Construction of a barge slip would be required near Wallis. Impacts , are estimated to be similar to those at the selected site. l Although a significant reduction in the length of the overland route j would be achieved by selection of this alternative, the obstacles to be ovei;ome to , assure river transportation result in rejection of this alternative. Additional dredging in the river would probably be required, and river flows would have to be controlled. . j 1 4.3. COLORADO RIVER The Colorado River is a navigation project up to about six miles upstream of the Highway 521 bridge, or about eight miles southwest of Bay City, Texas. The navigation channel terminates in a turning basin at the wooden Celanese dock. Beyond this point, the river becomes shallow and contains numerous snr.gs, sand bars, and some small dams. Therefore, a barge slip would have to be dredged in the vicinity of the turning basin for offloading on the east side of the river for overland transport. The ef fects of dredging the barge slip would be similar to those associated with the proposed route. An alternative of floading point exists about one mile downstream of the Hf ghway 521 bridge at the South Texas Project site. This offloading dock is located on the west side of the river, however, requiring that the RPV be transported east over the river. Existing bridges were found
- to be inadequate.
I l 1
Impacts associated with overland travel of 62 miles include more severe traffic tie-ups associated with moving through the more populous towns of East Bernard and Wharton, Texas. Concrete bridges occur at the San Bernard and Middle Bernard Rivers. A bypass would be required at the San Bernard. The bypass would require the clearing of trees as well as installing culverts in the stream bed. Construction of the bypass would result in increased turbidity. Another bypass would be required at the West Bernard River. Both the Middle and West Bernard Rivers have steep slopes, making construction of a bypass extremely dif ficult. A fourth bridge across Peach Creek could not be bypassed. The bridge would have to be reinforced. The overpass on U.S. 59, north of Wharton, Texas, is another obstacle. The vertical clearance of the overpass is only 16 feet, 9 inches, considerably less than the 30 to 35 feet required by the RPV. The complications and attendant impacts associated with the overland portion of this route would be far more than those expected on the selected route. The areas affected are more numerous and the nature of obstacles far more extensive. - 4.4 SAN BERNARD The San Bernard River route includes two fixed highway bridges and one swing railroad bridge across the river. Vertical clearance is adequate for passage. Dredging a barge slip on the east bank of the river will be required for of floading the RFV. Impacts associated with this activity for this selected alternative are described in Section 2.4. l The overland distance to the ACNGS site is 52 miles. Overhead obstacles along the route, such as traffic lights and utility lines, will have to be moved to permit passage of the RPV. The amount of urban l
M4 area to be traversed and the number of obstacles are much less than on
~
the other routes except for the Brazos River-Wallis alternative. Since the initial route selection wrs pe rf o rmed , a dock was 7 i constructed by the Phillips Oil Company on the west bank of the San 5 Bernard River just south of the FM 522 concrete bridge. The overland route would have been the same as the one selected. However, use of the , existing facility would have necessitated reinforcing the concrete bridge over the San Bernard River. The Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation would not approve such action due to the extent of struc-tural reinforcement required (G. McLelland and John Moorman, personal l comi:nnica tion).
- An alternate means of using the existing dock on the west side of the river was investigated. Instead of reinforcing the existing FM 522 .
bridge, a temporary bridge could be constructed just downstream of the existing bridge and extend upgrade from just upstream of the Phillips f dock across the river to intersect FM 522 just east of the present bridge. This alternative was not chosen because of the many uncer-tainties and complications associated with the possible acquisition of ! land, and the construction and removal of the bridge. Aquatic and terrestrial impacts of this alternative were not evaluated because the proposed methods of construction had not been formulated. 9 l 4.5
SUMMARY
l 1 Each of the four routes would require dredging a barge slip to offload the RPV. The greatest impacts to the environment would be j associated with dredging activities during cons truction of t he . ba rge slip. Such impacts appear to be of equal magnitude regardless of the I site selected. In summary, the San Bernard-overland route' was selected as a result l of what were judged to be comparative deficiencies in the other routes:
- 1) The Brazos Rive r-Ea s t Columbia route was considered less desirable because of the need to move through the more populous town of East Columbia. Water depth in the Brazos River is also less stable than in the San Bernard River.
- 2) The Brazos River-Wallis route would be more susceptible to uncontrolled changes in water levels in the river due to the distance traveled. Also, additional dredging in the river would probably be required.
- 3) Overland travel on the Colorado River route would present many more dif ficulties as more overhead obstacles exist, populous areas must be traversed, and several bridges would have to be bypassed.
l l l l i l L
i I
- m. l l
l l 5.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND AGENCY CONTACIS
~! e i
The following contains a list of permits or certificates that will be required, and agencies that were contacted and may be involved during l
I the course of the project. Figure 7 provides proposed schedules for construction and restoration of the barge slip and Varner Creek bypass. q Figure 8 is a schedule for obtaining permits and notifying agencies .I regarding water and overhead movement. The schedules are based on q offloading the RPV at the ACNGS site at time "0". .]
5.1. AGENCY CONTACTS A The following is a list of contacts made with various agencies ] J concerning the proposed project. , v i PERSONNEL CONTACTED:
- 1. Norman Barbier, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston. g Personal communication, April 26, 1979.
- 2. Hubert Berry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston.
Personal communication, April 26, 1979.
- 3. Mike Colby, Texas A & M University, Wildlife Department.
Personal communication, August 7,1979.
- 4. Jim Fisher, U.S. Geological Survey, Houston, Texas. Pe rsonal .j communication, March 12, 1980.
- 5. Gerald Grenwelge, Soil Conservation Service, Rosenberg, Texas. Personal communication, March 7, ' 1980.
- 6. Ed Hollis and John Balser, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas. Personal communication, January 25, 1980.
- 7. Bernie Massey, U.S. Geological Survey, Austin, Texas. Personal communication, March 12, 1980.
- 8. John Moorman, Texas Department of Highways and Public Trans-poration. Personal communication, March 13, 1980.
- 9. Beade Northcutt, Soil Conservation Service, Watershed Planning Section, Waco, Texas. Personal communication, January 25, 1980.
- 10. F. E. Potter, Jr., Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Austin, Texes. Personal communication, March 5, 7 and 12, 1980.
- 11. John Wilson and Becky Ball, Natural Resources Information System, Austin, Texas. Pe rsonal communication, August 7, 1979.
i CORRESPONDENCE (Attached):
- 1. Blaschke, Byron C. , Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, letter to Mr. Bill McBride, American Rigging
& Construction, Inc. , dated June 20, 1978.
- 2. DeBerry, B. L., Texas Highway Department, letter to Mr. Paul Storm, American Rigging & Construction, Inc., dated August 30, 1974.
- 3. De Le Rosa, U.S. Army Corpr, of Engineers, letter to Mr. Gerald McLelland, American Rigging & Construction, Inc., dated June 20, 1978.
- 4. Fleming, Robert G., Texas Water Quality Board, letter to Mr.
Paul Storm, American Rigging & Construction, Inc., dated July 10, 1974.
- 5. Latimer, Truett, Texas Historical Commission, letter to Mr.
W. F. McGuire, Houston Lighting & Power Company, dated March 19, 1980.
- 6. McGehee, E. D., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, letter to American Rigging & Construction, Inc., dated June 21, 1978.
- 7. McGehee, E. D., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, letter to Mr. Paul Storm, American Rigging & Construction Company, dated August 30, 1974.
l, 4
..e
- 8. Pate, Jr., J. E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, letter to Mr. Paul Storm, dated September 18, 1974.
- 9. Pot ter, Jr. , Floyd E. , Texas Parks and Wildlife Depa rtment ,
10. letter to Dr. Al Smith, Dames & Moore, dated March 7, 1980. Sharp, C. E., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, letter
] ~
to Mr. Paul Storm, American Rigging & Construction, Inc., ' dated June 27, 1974. 3 5.2. FERMIT REQUIRDiENTS ,j PERMITS: The following pe rmits are required to unload and transport the Reactor Pressure Vessel:
- 1. Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation - Permit
~
to transport load overland on State and Farm-to-Market roads. This permit is for an indefinite period of time.
- 2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Permit to dredge barge slip on the San Bernard River. A permit also will probably be required for the Varner Creek bridge bypass. ,
.4 CERTIFICATES: In addition to the above pe rmit s , the following certi-i ficates are required:
l
- 1. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) approval of the Corps of
~
Engineers' permit to dredge on any inland river. , 2. Texas Department of Water Resources issues a certificate l l in compliance with the Corps of Engineers permit. e
COORDINATION: Coordination will be required with the following agencies and private corporations:
- 1. Fort Bend County Sheriff Department
- 2. Brazoria County Sherif f Department
- 3. Austin County Sherif f Department
- 4. Wharton County Sheriff Department
, 5. U.S. Coast Guard, Freeport, Texas
- 6. Santa Fe Railroad
- 7. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
- 8. Missouri Pacific Railroad
- 9. Carrison Telephone Company
- 10. Fort Bend County Telephone Company
- 11. General Telephone Company of the Southwest
- 12. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
- 13. Community Public Service Company
- 14. Houston Lighting and Power Company
- 15. Texas Department of Water Resources
- 16. Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation i
l I
7 6.0 NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES NRC STAFF QUESTIONS - ALLENS CREEK BARGE LANDING SLIP AND OVERLAND TRANSPORTATION OF THE REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL 1 Each question is answered below. In most cases, the text of the l report is referred to by section number for a more complete response. j Figures, as appropriate, are also referenced. . b BARGE LANDING SLIP
._j Q1. Provide a general description of the current land use, vege-tation, and wildlife habitat for the site and its surroundings, based on county statistics, Soil Conservation Service data, and other sources . 'l
._i of existing information.
Response ) The descriptions are provided in Section 2.1. Q2. Provide a detailed description of the current land use, vegetation, and wildlife habitat present on the eight-acre site. Indi-cate the source of the information given.
Response
l The site description is presented in Section 2.1. A field survey _ conducted in February 1980 formed the basis of the description. Q3. Provide maps or figures of the 8-acre site, showing the , location of all activities associated with the construction and operation of the barge unloading facility. Maps should show topographic features - and vegetation types. 1 Response . l The vegetation types and topographic features are illustrated in Figure 2. I --
Q4 Describe the proposed barge slip. Use the same type of descriptive approach that would be used to describe the presently existing barge slip immediately across the river from the proposed slip. Using reasonable detailed maps and/or sketches, describe the locations of areas to be dredged and provide ba thymetric (depth and cross-section) data for the barge slip area. Identify and describe any service such as power lines that will be provided for the project.
Response
A preliminary description of the proposed barge slip construction is presented in Section 2.2. Figures 2 through 4, which supplement the text, are preliminary and not intended as final construction drawings. QS. Describe the plans for disposal of dredge spoil, including but not limited to: 1) location of the disposal site (s); 2) present land use, vegetation, and wildlife habitat of the proposed disposal site; 3) acreage of the disposal site; 4) alternative disposal sites considered; and, 5) reclamation of the disposal site af ter the project is completed.
Response
j Dredged material will be stockpiled on land adjacent to the barge slip and will be used to fill the slip once the RPV has been unloaded. Land use , vegetation and wildlife habitat descriptions are provided in Section 2.1. Decommissioning, or restoration of the barge slip is addressed in Section 2.4. Q6. List the Federal, State and local permits or approvals required for the barge slip and overland transportation of the reactor pressure vessel, (e.g., permits needed for dredging and dredge spoil disposal), discuss the information needed to obtain these permits, and provide a schedule for obtaining the permits.
Response
Peruits are discussed in Section 5.2; the proposed permitting scheduling is illustrated on Figure 8. I i I l
1 a
.. l Q7. Describe plans for determining if the dredge spoil contains any toxic substance that might cause the spoil to be classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery, Act of 1976. ,
Provide any existing information related to the potential content of 4 toxic substances in the dredge spoil.
Response
Borings will be drilled at the site to evaluate the engineering i characteristics of the soil. Samples will be collected from the cores , t and examined. Chemical analyses may be performed pending discussions with the Corp of Engineers (Galveston District).
.4 Q8. Provide a schedule of construction activities related to the ~l , barge slip. This should include the anticipated startup and completion dates, the number of workers required,- and identification of any anti-cipated impact en nearby community services and facilities. -
i
Response
i A generic schedule is presented in Section 5.2, and on Figures 7 and I 8, using the date for unloading the RPV at the ACNGS site as time zero. Other activities are backdated from time zero. The engineering has not been completed and a contractor has not been selected. Therefore, ~ l
- manpower estimates are unavailable. Due to the sho rt duration of the ,
project, construction workers probably will consnute from nearby towns, , so there would be only minimal impact on nearby community services. Q9. Provide an analysis of the impact of construction and use of the proposed facility on: 1) state and federally listed endangered, threate ned, or rare species; 2) prime and unique farmland; 3) flood- J i plains and wetlands; 4) other important or unique ecological or land use features associated ' with the site; 5) water quality, downstream water users and groundwater; and, 6) important fish species (use the definition of 'important' as given in Regulatory Guide . 4.2), _ fish habitats, and spawning areas. Include impacts due to disposal of dredge spoils. Identify and describe any service such as power lines which will be provided for the project, and discuss the impacts associated with pro-viding these services. l l j Response l Anticipated impacts related to each part of the question are l provided in Section 2.5.
i l l Q10. Provide an analysis of any anticipated impacts to the Sweeny Plantation that might result from the construction, use, or future disposition of the barge landing site.
Response
The Sweeny Plantation is located on the west bank of the San Bernard River. The Texas Archeological Survey conducted a field investigation of the site and concluded the project would not impact the Sweeny Planta-tion (Texas Archeological Survey,1979). The Texas Historical Commission has subsequently issued a letter of no objection (Texas Historical Commission,1980), attached. Q11. Describe the options available to you for final disposition of the barge slip. Indicate your decision or preference. Describe the current and probable future ownership of the 8-acre site.
Response
Abandonment and res to ra tion of the proposed barge slip site is discussed in Section 2.4; the impacts associated with restoration are addressed in Section 2.5. Q12. Provide documentation of your contacts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and other federal and state agencies that were related to the barge landing slip.
Response
A list of agency contacts is provided in Section 5.1. Copies of formal correspondence are attached at the back of this report. REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL OVERLAND TRANSPORTATION Ql. For the bridge on State Highway 36 crossing East Varner Creek:
- 1) describe plans for bypassing the creek; 2) provide a map or figure showing the route that will be used to bypass the creek; 3) describe the type of vegetation, the wildlife habitat, and the aquatic habitat
~
that will be affected by this bypass; and, 4) describe plans for _ reclamation of the bypass area. t
Response
7 The descriptions are provided in Section 3.2. ; Q2. Describe plans for removal of trees or trimming of branches i along those portions of the route where large trees extend over the roadway. Describe mitigation plans associated with the removal or i trimming of the several to many old trees along sections of FM Road 522 southwest of West Columbia and along FM Road 360 in Needville.
~1 Response ;
These plans are described in Section 3.3. . E* Describe plans for crossing railroads which are at elevated y , grades relative to the transporation route. In particular, the railroad crossing between State Highway 36 and the Allens Creek site is quite , steep, and appears to represent a potential problem. What modifications - to the crossings, if any, will be needed, and how long will use of the railroad be disrupted? m
Response
3 Preliminary plans and impacts related to the railroad crossing are discussed in Section 3.3. , Q4. Staff observations of the proposed route suggest that quite a few telephone and power lines would ba sffected by reactor pressure vessel transportation. 1) Provide a detailed schedule rela ted to the movement of the reactor pressure vessel; 2) estimate the number of line users who may be af fected by the movement, and the length of service interruption; 3) discuss what mitigative measures are being considered and how users will be notified of the interruption, especially as the move is related to towns through which the vessel will pass; 4) estimate i the number of lines that will be raised prior to movement of the pressure vessel; 5) discuss what measures will be taken to lessen traf fic impacts along the route, describe arrangements being made with highway and law enforcement officials, and identify the of ficials contacted; s'd, 6) pro-vide an estimate of anticipated traffic impacts and their loution and dura tion. _ _ .._, ~ _ . . .. . - _, .
i ..
Response
- 1) The schedule is provided on Figure 7.
- 2) The disruption of power and phone service is addressed in Section 3.3.
- 3) Interruption and movement through towns will be coordi-nated with local agencies as discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.3.
- 4) The number of lines will be surveyed just prior to movement of the vessel.
- 5) and 6) Traffic movement and impacts are addressed in Sections 3.1 and 3.3.
QS. Describe alternative plans tha t have been considered for transporting the reactor pressure vessel to the Allens Creek site, and present the rationale , including consideration of environmental impact, that was used to select the proposed plan.
Response
Alternative plans and routes considered for transporting the RPV are discussed in Section 4.0.
LITERATURE CITED
- 1. American/ Marks 1974, Feasibility Study for Transporting a Nuclear Reactor Vessel to Houston Lighting & Power Company, Allens Creek ~I Nuclear Generating Station, Wallis, Texas. Vols. I, IIA and IV.
- 2. Federal Register, January 17, 1979, List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 44(12):3636-3654. _,
- 3. Federal Register, January 31, 1978, Part 657 -
Prime and Unique Farmlands. Vol. 43(21):4030-4033. '
- 4. McGowen, J.H., L.F. Brown, Jr., T. J. Evans, W. L. Fishe r, and
']
C. G. Groat, 1976, Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal " Zone - Bay City - Freeport Area. Bur. Econ. Geol. , Austin, Texas. '
- 5. Soil Conservation Service, 1979, Interim Report - Soil Survey of Brazoria County, Texas.
- 6. Texas Archeological Survey, 1979. An Archeol.1gical Survey of a Proposed Barge Of f-Loading Facility, Brazoria County, Texas. Univer-sity of Texas at Austin.
- 7. Texas Historical Commission, March 1980.
i l_ _ -
* .- . .4 .
~'~ . t, .h.-
k 9
^
3 b- Atacs f ,I w"' [M) t[ -
-~]hh l
,L . g;'R -
~
N' , f' . I y & h , 1 - 0
, ns %. .m >
, m '= ,.. m .
E
~ Nh} N e
' ~- - ' ~ : 8
.. % .m 4 ,,
'h > [yrg$
y % D. g A ; . . ; s.x .g , ..- ( j. s a .
.dv z.s2 ,
I .i,,
) ,e . . , s l
*' . $, ...-- .:.+a +3
,'a ', - i A,,,a g6 4 ,g Y . <
,y* g -- ,,
t%e t g /r n t s , .
( )
' ; ? 'i, ' '
' ,BRAZDS R!vER-WALLIS y '
( - 's , f, ,
- 4. .
," ,. h f $.'i 3
.v .' .
q l
- LY G: ':,* N '
- M , . )- ~,f ;
t ~r f'i
^ -
x , Ln, , N'- r,', , ( -4 {.,
. . f[ , , , , ' --
E ,, L } W G +; .. Ty I,
'* H . y - Q , r p- pg y y .,. ; ~ '*
Q:..,
.g s
,,, o j. . 4 Q g -) ~ [ -
) * ,BRAZOS RIVER ~ --
2-{h'g--j
.'.E* . -M M 'lI ( .f e
' EAST COLUt'2IA -- a
'#= ' i C'
MQ ,f~ +
/ -
d ROUTE ' "~ ' - 1 A -
.g, ,
. , M '
M.ni 7 24 Z , .1 - COLORADO RIVER ~
~.. .
77 3
'P '~ A ROUTE ' * .
' 0).
';- , /
- ',, e x, ' ' k,
~.Q<,,:%)fPROPOSEDBARGE, T '
f.I , ' *,g'-
- P
.g. 7-
, a !
}'W>_. j d y l] 7 T
.- / . ,. s- ,- ,. D ' N : 0FFLOADING s f
- f ,- .
_ , ~ dt. FACILITY Q, , . .' y , -j- 7#
's '
.k r -
-- i 7
;i--]h-. -'**
p 'CQ
,_n. .
, s. . _.' -- *.y ,
_Y a
?
M
'--t t _ . .", ,' $ { i ;-* h ! . ,,, A
,r-t o- l g
~
* =, _ + - _ , .
. n<
h
. Y,; . / s N p. > .* ,. * , , - SAN BEMARD RIVER 3 . y .
5 f y,3& ?, ' ~:2 3 y ! _c 3( i.C' l .. ,, ,{1* ke A *} a
$?'lf',x%,f' J. ' r -
_, f.
; + #~ *,/! ~5. /
y y ('
- , i
.y
'f.. ' , A
, i
- N" g. - %.
J3 j., 1; <
. gA.. -
h ,,', . p . h ., '-J, -L tg ,
- '" ,' ~ ' ' ';
'f ', . 4 , p#' -
M{y '*' %[, h,,f(C__ ,
._, / _ . M ir - '
'" N
'4, * :: I,,_ ' <v b
b t n
. .' ,' ' ? .
,{.
4 8 j1 ,(a j '[k - / [
- y} -'
vpv b}.1$$$ &, H4,4r ';hy ,. n y ~- ? w. a.m . hl.4 [b . , , a r 3 SCALE In attis Q ,, ,., . 1[e
Q" 1
~
J l } _
~
# l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Allens Cree' Nuclear Generating Station
~- 4 Unit 1 ALTERNATIVE RPV TRANSPORTATION ROUTES FIGURE 1
3 _w : . :. t r % mwaN/9
. /'., *-
\,
\ Ve, - f. .
/
%nldV j %x\ .. '- *
/
my x7 , '
+ / \
g .
^
/ u e
)
/ * .. .., f .
~,
42 ' ' gll . (' / '.. 5%,
,/ \ ,
,Sj wn / #
+
1 l p~. / q i
,/. '.st s &
g / _
..%. h./-
. ,-- y,
, n, . . .
/ ,,
g p .> ni
/ . .;r c w.. ; -
'! ' j ~
)
,/ ,
D ,Q l .
- c.
iv - I r
- u. * - ,
-/i
.%r ,
./ >
+' 4'y,/~
i . Nq ) l - e
/
~
l yM / f - ^ e>> m% % ,
.M
/.,
/' ,'
g' i l 4' ' - 's q, - - I !
. 4 / a
- n-g ;m-M'ilsd Poirit Ch
'Qx,, ~ ,
8
~.., *
;.,-{ PROPOSED AREA FOR BARGE
- . '*g. 0FFLOADING FACILITY s
3 - C .*(REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL)
/ -\ ] } ., _
f ', = ,o i N \ '
\'A
( ../ & ' . /
, e, ,
'h { ~&, X-
.f
, ,' 'y-' e
- 2' m
j e
.,g L ~.
, g ,
./ l 5 7 J'
l ~ ~ ~ ss ' y . ', }, p N4
' 3'~ ( = . _ .~~~
~
~~=
/
y#;y= ~. _ _-
. , , ~ , _ 9
'y ' ,
.* / *
~ ...
p . / m r . ,,
, ..,y n
, ,a s ~ % . -
l , .. - eq ,ff,' -% ,;? A L .
,o k ,
/ / 4 \ / . -; 'b l + c 1 MrLE
- _ _ ._a __ - -
g
- ce o txa ;xo em om um 6xe ro eter 3
*)
l $ 3 1 afLCMETRE % .20 t _ . . . . .- . - _ , _ .; - "w. HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY An . c,. 6 N.. ..,G.. ..... s,.,4..
- u. , t PROPOSED BARGE OFFLOADING
REFERENCE:
U.S.G.S. QUAD MAP FOR SWEENY, TEX., FACILITY DATED 1952, PHOTOREVISED 1972. FIGURE 1A
osur san
~~
NOU TON w
'4, A'.M ACNGS' S,~'l.I[' /
, .,f*]-
YM Sr W y*,,% J ,, agan at PROPOSED OVERLAND
% ROUTE 3[d.vo. 4, ,.
*r, e
9 9, q
**e,,
- e. ,, **
{ I WE l C O.#*# 1 " 1 w SW.Eh? *
"o%g
- e. . '%
(.,,.br es" t. 9 q 1 M .. i ' Q e,EC l a 5 IO
$ CAL 1 IN MILES { g MCUSTON LIGHTINC & power CouPANY pt'#get , , , ,
Alleas C,eek H.c ese Ceaeret.ag Stevi a
^" "
M) k 5/ M 0 RPVThNSP0RT FIGURE IB
d g
; - . ,=>
. a P.
,, . p.
p ).4 b af E - n' -
~ . _
, -r- r- -r-r -r i . ' ' '
,! g - - , , , ,
v tm r r- rTC~TN"'T ' A L-^ A-'-I j,. . , , .
-2 i -
,/' -
/ :- / , tw :: i o
\Y s ,(3 7 ,)j, , ' ,,.;.g,[*h:/l + *,/ , ;/j ,sy
.y
/j --
7 ,'A/ 0 ,) '/ . p / tacawaracwa
'o i (4 wava=
C
< ua rca A o., c.,
. ..,an 6~ . *Toaaos . , , ',.,' . . , ,
N '
, y .g . -p{ntcr.uf . :. ., o
,,a / y/
" \ 'i s,\ a eI s ,\ '
.. .m _>. .
,y ,9 s T
m.. .. NT
\'A }
I ,. p
.KA Qx "N -
m t
,3
[ , 4
,- .. e ...
.,r u s ,r ..;,- , ~ _ S'yy' .
\ x
\
/.. N . , . . - . . . ~ . , , , ~
\ . w o n e.c .
/ /,/
s
^***
i' vv, y,. ,_ / / ,.'
,[ " \
' T- , i o se** .,
A
- N
/ a+N s i. i
\\ \~\ . ?
I T e.o avvo Dw- #j, C p . , 4 ..noed.I L m o s .cce . no.o
\ -
\7 ~~ Dk _u M ,/ y t 'g k ,
NyT 7'- .i - i , ; p - g/ g-;;gs,== a i s
,a i
s t i
, o \. \ '
\x ,./* N
~ ,,
\
= =s-.
N' /N- i HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY a... .., s N ./, / Ali... c,..k N. u... I G.... s -
'f.7 " " "
PROPOSED BARGE OFFLOADING FACILITY AND VEGETATION MAP w~____, .s __-j '" '" "' FIGURE 2 ,b
25 Li c o [ I Et d4 o as g"" O 'd. mM us W O **
- I =3Egm _8 o
m w W
- 3. = ym u.
E R- E o .! $. Eo3 g Y k
- h: a" g 83 u
z O8 1r.'
.a p C M W m
w m.a i E k 2 3 r e a E r$ E 5 5 s a s g 5 l 4 0*Z I I
@. 0$ i 04 g.6
, a s. h a
b i os s 9'tl ;
^
}
1 2 4 S i
;! 4 O'03 Z k Z s 0 ?'
"1, 3' - i o_
F = p
' 3 IJ o zt i 0 0*8L 4 0
) h W
- 5]
- m 4 i; 3
- t I
l 4 N
,; Li j O'St ; ,q d
4 [ (; D
> p rtt 3 .
?
r a it a b 0'n , a
)
r 7 i O'S e j -
/
' .i
/
e f %l t e
/
i I
. e, e r n e,e - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - _
_ _ _ , -_____3 ,
o 3 5 ' *8 W
;$y~ S-E $1 d- .T 03 5d f o rhSWNl' 71 EO gjo wsg$2~
- o- os g5.
' "g0 = 58 e zWW
$8 .. e=ente on Sa3Ca c 8 Al N* 5"g*Q =
0$ h wg Lg5 E ws o 5* U"d as a we s - w 21 u
- W r?
e m3 . = w=os" d 3 SW 2 as i
'o HE 25 "
L% ld $"2W-3* = 20 4; '.p- "$g~ad
=
8 < $ = ;;b I 3 o.. 25- .
.n 8 . . "
45 =
.. i ~NP ll' ?y
= ; g22*~
I l E o l d I w Sb l 1
- a.
- 1 1
s-I U Sy 55 I f. =$ '
' Z == e Rmo l g i
I m I *5 .. E s' ' 1 F Rg 5p J g . . _ pg i y W" 25 l g [ l l (D E S EE 590
~R>
*R a
's a l E $$$ EE e e.
- g=
- 3' s % sEs N
' 5 l h 8
~N ,a 6 a
, 4 2 l Z
r J
=
l l j +. s- , c s Q w [qs
=
h F 1 b a~ b' k Q l g ,a/ l W
<a e = :s M N 4 a 5 k R8 W W
=
5' 5 g N
' C \?
O o[ b h /
. i o 1 O $ [
m e <I II e <
?x .
- 7& 3 g E s S i :
d l 5 1 7, a
.o ; =
- 3. o l-
= i ow; I
s e. . . i s i ...
l i i Q MWY 3 6
/
i
}
! ., /
\ f I
\
i
/
', -f Fl.Iseu sAAX l ."-
g \ x x t
\ !
s vamNgg g-CAEER' s { I l \
\ '
\ ,
\ ;
h45.H
! i i
.~-
a h ,LsPROPOSED BYPASS
\ ~. i 7 J N l "
- j j .M X
x i i
'N ' ~
l N
?
cxism%o amicoc - l,
;y N j Mc pu, i
l ) N
=- .; . x a 'g \ ,\ f s \
s
'NO. !\Wi %
- ! v !\'
Js) l\p
,' ,\'
- tse:
l tnmw re, HCP3ED Ctgat.CT ,% fi
~
l h\ 40 M E at :. m f % 3 w :x
,/
*R ?s i
I r l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY l Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station ,
! Unit I >
1
, / VARNER CREEK BYPASS !
IN/ x FIGURE 5
(svrass acAo C**' '"CIR N , Et. u.as M 21 _ t.s - . , - - - . 1$ p NS / / ! !
. x EI!sTI% C9EEr3E0 IIIhTI%N l
. y' EL. 38. 36 CREEKBED N 1 RcPE cf Existf% cartr ED P' -
1 . ,
/ u r s ;a.,
. 47 .- -- . . .g.
. ."J' SE3;gg
.;.$. m e r.u.- w .2 waa- ' ~ ' " ' ' '
' ' ' ' " ~
l S EC TIO N A J ('io SAatEL C' LVERT
'ido Ao* 9 CORRUGATED ,
TCP OF Ccn'acLLE3 SACxFILL . !!3h g /*ETAL P! Pts (CW) j
- -CONTMOLLE3 BActFILL - !!
/Vf,--.
*CP DF CMMLLED BACKFILL - I q , ,/ / /
/ , /
p/,//f///
/
/ lf /
/
/ ll
?:P c7 sE3ct% , jes?
[ 50'T3M 0F P! pes
' U M % " %=.. . *'),/[/k '. ;* [,__/ /g 8EDCI%
Sv7s: .~v a+ a ? y :, e;g; e: e.NN SECTION 8 ( icus:
- 1. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE RELAT!vE TO EACH OTHER CNLY (I.E., A55JE0 CAV1
- 2. CCnTa0LLES BACEFILL ! TO BE I457ALLES At ?!4 0F CMP. 195TA L LA!!an.
- C
- nTROLLED BA;KFILL !! ?0 SE 195TALLEt !*pOIA'Ett Patca 70 #E5$EL '
?RA45 PORT. EvPA55 TO 8E RETWED IaPECIATELT AF*ER dE55EL TRAmspeaT.
l l l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS VARNER CREEK BYPASS FIGURE 6
a ACTIVITY SELECT SOILS FIRM l BARGl. SLIP CONSTRUCTION SCHEUULE COMPLETE SOILS INVESTIGATION OF SLIP SITE COMPLETE PRELIMINARY l DESIGN OF BARGE SLIP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I SUBMIT PERMIT APPtICATIONS FOR SLIP CUNSTRUCTION l O G b SELECT SLIP CONTRACTOR NEED PERMITS FOR SLIP CONSTRUCTION BEGIN SLIP CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE SLIP CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE SLIP RESTORATION SELECT S0ILS FIRM l VARNER CREEK BYPASS ANSTRUCTION SCHEDULE SOILS INVESTIGATION FOR BYPASS PRELIMINARY DESIGN BYPASS SUBMIT PERMli APPLICATIONS COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN OF BYPASS SELECT BYPASS CONTRACTOR; BYPASS PERMIT REQUIRED l BEGIN BYPASS CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE BYPASS CONSTRUCTION _ l PREPARE BYPASS FOR HAUL .___ BEGIN REPOVAL OF BYPASS COMPLETE RESTORATION OF BYPASS AREA . l
-100 -90 -80 60 -50 -40 -30 10 0 +10 +20 ESTIMATED TIME IN WEEKS
{ HOUSTON LIGHTING & P0 wit COMPANY AH . C.. 6 N clee Gese,ee..g Sees. l LEGEND u..e i
' "0" DATE IS OFFLOADING DATE OF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.
I RPV AT ACNGS SITE. BARGE OFFLOADING FACILITY AND VARNER CREEK BYPASS FIGURE 7
I E 1 , 2 aa
- r.
=
.J g$
O a$_ '*' 9 8= o $g5m o
*ql=i
_ OR C
?z? E" I Ei *
- a. 11 p
R. l l l l C.
.m
- 3. 5 1 ;
0 S. E had mammmmm O. m-R. mensum 8 8 1 o . da Er R. W
.o. y 0
g .8"- l g a Fe 2 o $ b oh O 8 ir., d Wg Bo and
- ~ EW W53 8 . m a g @E Cass e g 3 -8 g= z<5 ve- E E r zun3 -
o g 1= g "aoi s 85t - g g Wg w 8 W e. 2'-33e es r - o .
- * * $sGE s 1=e-e 3 :E e
ag8 - Ie: 3e=e= ug
- 8 s_,
E5,i a e 2 s1: o . er E
; a=- - e - a =gs
=a v
- CQ 2 gio = of-M ~ 5mW 2won aea3:g$
m ado d
- ta 1
2 - ._ a gE- w- - a - a e== I: e == e= o a e I , *=
. = = e=
=a-gbU I O E 8 # U
=
=n *ea * =
a - MM $ 5, S.
. $C Ly~
' e. .;-
\ $~, I CouuissioN
.%T A1 E IDEP A NTM ENT OF IllGilWA YS e centra o.atetoa l tracaw ooustow cwarauaw AND PL'HLIC TR ANN!' ORT A'ilON e t otetna, Ltwitt C Gm(tm At%TI%.1F %4% 1 stet l CMaetts t Sapow$
June 20, 1978 Iw at*Lv at,ta To ritt No D-18M l American Rigging and Construction, Inc.
- P. O. Box 47007 l Brook Hollow Station Dallas, Texas 75247 Attention
- Mr. Bill McBride
Dear Sir:
. Reference is made to your telephone conversation of this date with Bob Guinn concerning the issuance of permit to move a 1,000 ton nuclear reactor in the greater Houston area.
Attached is a copy of our letter dated August 30, 1974, ad-vising we would issue a permit for this load contingent upon certain conditions expressed in our letter. If these condi-tions are met, this load can be permitted. Sincerely yours, B. L. DeBerry Engineer- ' rector By: B C. B1 schke, Chief Engineer of Maintenance operations l l JMM: mea
~
. . _ _ ~ _ _ ._ _ __ . _ - - _ - ._
August 30, 1974 D-18M American Rigging and Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 47007 Brook Hollow Station Dallas, Texas 75247 Attention: Mr. Paul Storm j
Dear Sir:
l Reference is made to your letters of June 24, July 22, August 5 and l August 27, 1974, requesting a permit to move a 1000 ton nuclear re-l actor vessel, on multi-rubber-tired vehicles, i<n the greater Houston l aren. This office has requested our District Office in Houston to conduct a detailed study of your proposed route, to study methods of traffic control, and prepare a cost estimate per mile for damaged roads. These studies have now been completed. l The District and this office have studied and consiGered your request, and it has been determined that a permit to move this load cen be issued on the following basis: l l 1. That the movement will be made using the multi-rubber-tired vehicles described in your original request.
- 2. That a representative of American Rigging and the Highway Department drive the route before the' proposed move to in-spect the roads in order to determine the "premove" condi-tion of all roads.
- 3. That representatives of decision making authority from both, the Highway Department and American Rigging should drive the route while the load is being moved to observe any damagFTs it occurs in order to agree on the extent of damage as it happens.
- 4. Any culvert or structure which has a span of 7' or more will be matted in both directions with 6" timbers.
- 5. The base of all roads must be dry.
I American Rigging and Conetruction, Inc. Attention: Mr. Paul Ftone. August 30, 1974 Page 2
- 6. Once this move has begun it should not stop until it has reached its destination, uniens the roadway base starts to become saturated from rain while the move is under way. The extent of saturation will bo determined by the Eighway De-partment. Since the occurrence of rain during the move is a definite possibility, numerous points along the route should be selected prior to the move es emergency parking locations.
- 7. American Rigging must rupply the Austin Office, before the l
move, with proof of insurance in the amount of ~ $1,000,000.00 to cover possible damage to the highway facilities. I B. The method of handling traffic during the move shall be the f responsibility of American Rigging; however this method I shall be approved by the righway Department,before the mova begins. With a move of this magnitude, it in suggested that American Rigging contect the Sheriff's Office of each county along the route. It is por.cible that the Department of Public Sefety might'also assist with traffic control.
- 9. That the tire size of wheels be at least 10:00 X 15.
- 30. Before the permit is issued, Amerienn Rigging must present to our District Office in Ho*uston a comprehensive and de-tailed presentation of the type of equipment to be used to move this load.
If this office may be of further service, please advise. Sincerely yours B. L. DeBerry State Highway Engineer By: Archie J. Sherrod, Chief Engineer of Maintenance Operations
/0/n ! JMM: mea
RECEIVED SEP 51974 G..- - AMERICAN RIGGING & CONST. IflC. l couwissiou n.= ......,........ At.aa= =ousto .....-.. TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ***'"" DEwiTT C. SREEM IIfu AND 3RA3O8 CMARLES E. SIMONS A U ST1N. TEEAS 78?O9 l August 30, 1974 IN REPLY REFER TO FILE NO. D-18M American Rigging and Construction, Inc. P. O. Box 47007 Brook Hollow Station Dallas, Texas 75247 Attention: Mr. Paul Storm Dear Sir Reference is made to your letters of June 24, July 22, August 5 and August 27, 1974., requesting a permit to move a 1000 ton nuclear re-l actor vessel, on multi-rubber-tired vehicles, in the greater Houston i area. l l This office has requested our District Office in Houston to conduct a detailed study of your proposed route, to study methods of traffic control, and prepara a cost estimate per mile for damaged roads. ] These studies have now been completed. l l The District and this office have studied and considered your request, and it has been determined that a permit to move this load can be issued on the following basis:
- 1. That the movement will be made using the multi-rubber-tired vehicles described in your original request.
- 2. That a representative of American Rigging and the Highway Department drive the route before the proposed move to in-spect the roads in order to determine the "premove" condi-tion of all roads.
- 3. That representatives of decision making authority from both the Highway Department and American Rigging should drive the route while the load is being moved to observe any damage as it occurs in order to agree on the extent of damage as it happens.
{ 4. Any culvert or structure which has a span of 7' or more will be matted $n both directions with 6" timbers.
- 5. The base of all roads must be dry.
l l t American Rigging and Construction, Inc. Attention: Mr. Paul Storm August 30, 1974 Page 2
- 6. Once this-move has be, gun it should not stop until it has reached its destination, unless the roadway base starts to become saturated from rain while the move is under way. The extent of saturation will be determined by the Highway De-partment. Since the occurrence of rain during the move is a definite possibility, numerous points along the route should be selected prior to the move as emergency parking locations.
l 7. American Rigging must supply the Austin Office, befcre the l move, with proof of insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.00 l to cover possible damage to the highway facilities. l
- 8. The method of handling traffic during the move shall be the responsibility of American Rigging; however, this method shall be approved by the Highway Department before the move begins. With a move of this magnitude, it is suggested that American Rigging contact the Sheriff's Office of each county along the route. It is possible that the Department of Public Safety might also assist with traffic control.
- 9. That the tire size of wheels be at least 10:00 X 15.
- 10. Before the permit is issued, American Rigging must present to our District Office in Houston a comprehensive and de-tailed presentation of the type of equipment to be used to move this load.
If this office may be of further service, please advise. Sincerely yours B. L. DeBerry State hway n neer l Archie J. Sherrod, ief Engineer of Maintenance Operations JMM: men
g<- , DEPARTEENT OF TN[ ARMY satersten sisteset.cears er tusentras e f} 3 r.e.een 121e satutstem, itsas 1t553
= , . .
SVCCO-RP 20 June 1978
?
Nr. Gerald R. McLelland Amerienn Riggleg 6 Construction, Inc. t F. O. Box 47007 Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. McLelland:
This is in reference to your letter dated 16 June 1978 concerning a proposed dock faellity for unloading a nucicar reactor vessel in the San Ecrnard i
.tiver near Wallis, Texas.
We no longer have our file copy of the 18 September 1974 letter to you from Mr. J. E. Pate nor do we have any informatien from you describing the dock facility. However, even with this information we could not guarantee that a permit would be issued. From past experience docking facilities are usually acceptabic and do not present undo environmental problerns. l F6r additional informst f on, please contact Mr. Jim Jones,at 713-763-1211, i ext 382. Sincerely yours, , })
/.
j , {. W / r' d < MARCOS DE IA ROSA Chief, Permit Branch l , l
-w... _ _- .
e ,-e. _--p ,, - n a %.-+ ,we.
c.s.att innt.E JtW C. LANGDON hie nd &M *
, , n ,, TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD #' ""^"*""
gaggggg, CLYDE JOMMSON
,- p EXE UTIVE DIRE [ tog M T.CARRfROM
$. Fll. (51314Tb3All lifWn Nn8LTH CnNr.R F.SA AVF.,7 Atol P O Dnt 13tes c 4 Petal.tT 4TinM 14*18 Al: AT84. TF 4 42 July 10, 1974 Mr. Paul Storm American Rigging & Construction, Inc.
P. O. Box 47007 Brook Hollow Station l Dallas, Texas 75247 l
Dear Mr. Storm:
Thank you for your letter dated July 3, 1974 seeking this agency's comments on your proposed dredging of either the Brazos or San Bernard River. A certification from the appropriate state agency is a requirement for a Corps of Engineers' permit. Our agency does not have a speci-fic application form for this type of activity. If you would please transmit a copy of the Corps of Engineers' application and appropriate location maps to the attention of Bob Galindo, NPDES Section, here at our office, then certification proceedings will be initiated for your application, If we can be of further assistance to you, please feel fre'e to contact ! us. 1 Very truly yours, Ll!% ~ ng(,s e-4 obert G. Fle P. E. Director, Central Operations RAG:mkV l l l I
q iTT Q -- is , . . . . ' ..- + ., . .. --
/ _ _ (,c.mm,n,.mnw.,n... #. R.a., w,m u x.. ..M3 . .
f
, f TatIrr LtTIMER 4 - - ~
j[(d IIhMl )]f 'p P. O. B OX :::Fe AL'STI.\ TEAAS Fam
!j EXECLTIVE DIRECTOR ., . T _
__t
, gh v$,'dOUIL !?IA%lt March 19, 1980 l
- i
~
l ! l I l Mr. W. F. McGuire l Principal Engineer Houston Lighting & Power i l Company . l Electric Tower j l P.O. Box 1700 - l l Houston, Texas 77001 , i
! i l Re: Proposed barge off-loading i i facility site - Brazoria Co. i I !
' i
Dear Sir:
I l l We are in receipt of the archeological evaluation concerning the above-referenced ' l undertaking. After a review of the findings, we conclude that, as described, the l . proposal should not affect sites on the National Register of Historic Places, nor lj any site presently in the process of submission to the National Register. The survey of sites in the area which may be eligible for inclusion within the National Register, however, has not been completed. Therefore, should cultural resources
, be encountered during construction, work will cease and the State Historic Preser- ,
{ vation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be afforded the opportunity to comment in accordance with the Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 C.F.R., Part 800). j U Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review process in our common ; goal of providing the future with a past. If we may be of further service, please advise. : Sincerely, l Truett Latimer ' State Historic Preservation Officer ' by l Alton K. Briggs
- 9. , " - Q' .i f i
Director I Cultural Resource Management .
! U.AR 21980 AKB/1ft ,
l t :..r: :nuni-n.~: c- i ! ee: rd Baxter. r' - - l 1: 1 1 :
$bt Enft JJt W ktforO Se79tl/Om l
i l
, . e.l 7'ys D(PARINENT OF TN[-ARET
/ % satursten essisitt.tsers er tusentras t P.0,808 1229
., satetsten, stras 17553 UOL'.L .
SWGCO-M 21 June 1978 American Rigging and Construction Company ; . . ". . . c. P. O. Box k7007 Dallas, Texas 75247 6' , L . .!~..P : . 4 - t .,... 7, r;;; l Gentle. men: This is in response to an oral request by your Mr. Gerald McLelland con-cercing navigation on the San Bernard River Channel. The information furnished you in Av letter of 30 August 1974, copy attached, is valid with the following exception. The controllihg depth is nov 7 feet below mean lov tide datum and occurs at the junction of the San Bernard River Channel and the Gulf Intracoastal Watervay. I anticipate that this area vill be dredged during calendar year 1979, subject to the availability of funds. I an, inclosing a copy of our Hydrographie Bulletin to provide you additional information concerning the prevailing conditions on the San Bernard River Channel. Additional.ly, your orFanization has been placed on our r. ailing list to keep you abreast of channel tonditions as they are reported. 1 Please feel free to call on us if we can be of further service to you. Sincerely yours, 2 Incl E. D. McGDEE As stated Chief, Construction-Operations Division l l l
i
- D E f* A i T i.'.1; NT OF Tilt Ai?MY
, g y
g ca t vi.:n iin sii . ..et.v. cuse , os cut,iucr.ws i*. o u o m i w . Dj , ., , , .,,g c.a i.vi :.v ow. n = as n s ,i,
, ,7
h SWCCO
'. l 30 August 1974 l
Mr. Paul Storm i American Rigging and Construction Company F. O. Box 47007 Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. Storm:
This is in furtherance to our telephone conversation of 26 August 1974 concerning navigation on the San Bernard River Channel. Inclosed is a drawing that shows the authorized Pedersi project. As noted on the drawing the 9 by 100-foot project is being maintained to about Mile 27. This is a very reliable channel in that it has a very low shoaling rate. We have not had to dredge during the past five years. The reported controlling depth is 8 feet below mean low tide between Mile 20.5 and 25.2. Ilowever, the water surface in this thus reach is the usable normally about two feet above the mean low tide datum, depth of water in the reach is about 10 feet. Please feel free to call if I can be of further service to you. Sincerely yours, j
' /47'7 6 e
- V 1 Inci E. D. McGEllEE Acting Chief Project map Construction-Operations Division l
1 1
------w-- -
=y,9 --y--e,-+,-, -
g----- a w --~my - rm- >----- -
. I;",. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' 6 sas.vtsvoM ossvascT.comes oF ENGINEERS
,s P. o. so m a as e (gy,f
,- v-- sat.vtston. Texas 77sso SVGCO-R 18 September 1974 l Mr. Paul Storm l Box 47007 Brook Hollow Station Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. Storm:
This is in repl/ to your letter of 12 August 1974 { From the standpoint of navigation, your proposed dock facility for unloading a nuclear reactbr vessel in the San Bernard River would appear to be acceptable. It also appears that your proposal would not involve undos environmenta 1 prob-lems. However, final judgment ori both these aspects will only be possible after public notice and receipt of coments. ( I must emphasize that we are unable to make a final judgment until coments are received via the public notice route. Sincerely yours, 1
.1 pJ.E.PATE,JR.A4-Chief Permit Branch l
i
'N
'4by 4'>+& '
, e .. <e 1 .
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
%*<~ $*
1.0 sf E4 EM
'S d :u U=n m
l,l h.., ll!!lb 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 6" >
+% + //p *$h,(N'b/ 4D)pkj;'3((
Sf y
2 w do
- g3 9' t;> /g A Y
R//\$@4&y /gf 8b$1 V+4 . e .. <e TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1,. %'+'$ l 1.0 522 EM y@ll!E I.I [m IlliM 1.8 l
~~
- I.25 l 1.4 1.6 i __
< 6" >
4
*r*r% ++//A
*k N//
'D)>k{h[4 Sf v
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS , COMMIS$10NERS PE R R Y R. BASS JOE K. FULTON
}
Chairman, Fort Worth Lubboch JAMESR.PAXTON EDWIN L. COX,JR. Vice-Che.cmen, Polestine Dalias PEARCE JOHNSON Ex ECUTivE DIRECTOR W. S. OSBOR N, JR. Austin Santa Elena Austin,Tomas 78744 March 7, 1980 Dr. Al Smith l Dames and Moore i Suite 200 l 4321 Director's Row l Houston, Texas 77092
Dear Dr. Smith:
This is in response to your recent request for information regarding endangered and/or nongame species. Enclosed are state lists, annotated as to the estimated chances of encountering specific animal taxa in Brazoria County. Although these lists should prove useful to you as background material and for general planning purposes, they are not intended as substitutes for comprehen-sive onsite evaluations made by competent biologists. Determination of the actual presence of a species in a given project area depends l on a number of variables such as seasonal and daily activity cycles, environmental activity cues, preferred habitat, transiency, and popula-tion density (both wildlife and human). Absence of a species can - be demonstrated only with great difficulty and then only with repeated negative observations taking into account all of the variable factors contributing to the lack of observability. Information regarding protected or rare plant species is summarized on an attached advisory sheet. Please let us know if we may be of further help. Sincerely,
~
M Floyd E. Potter Jr. Wildlife Biologist FEP:WIOD Enclosures l
REGULATIONS F OR TAKIN G, POSSESSING,TR ANSPORTING, EXPDRTING, PROCESSING, SELLING OR OFFERING FOR SALE, OR SHIPPIN G E N D ANGE RE D SPE CIES 127.30.09.001 .006 As Amended July 1977 The fo!!owing rules are promufgated under the authority of .004. Penalties. Any person who violates any provisions of these Sections 43.021 through 43.030, Sections 67.001 through 67.005, and rufes is guilty of a misdemeanor: (a) On first conviction, he is
. Sections 88401 through 68.021. Texas Parks and Wildhfe Cede, punishable by a fine of not ten than $100 (One Hund'ed Dol:ars) not more than $200 (Two Hundred Dollars).
.301. Definitiert. *? arson" means any individual, firm, cornare. (b) On second conviction, he is punishab:e by a fme of not tion, anociation. or partnership. less than $200 (Two Hundred Do!!an) nor enors than $500 (Frye Hundred Do!!ars), or confinement in county jeit for not len than 30
.002. Permits to Teke Certain Fish or Wild!ife. No person may (thirty) days nor more than 90 (ninety) days, or both fine end take, ponen, er transport itsh or wildhfe classified as endangered confinement in jail.
species and named in this rule for soological gardens or scientific (c) On conviction of a third or subseavent vic!ation, he is purposes, to take or transport fish or wildhfe classified as endangered punishable by a fine of not less than $500 (Feve Hundred Dol:arsinor species, as specified in this rule, from the wild, or from their natural more than $2,000 (Two Thousand Dollars), and confinement in county habitat, for propagation for commercial purposes, unlen he has jail for not leu than 6 (six) months nor more than 1 (one) year. obtained a vahd permit from the Department as required by Sections 43.021 throu;h 43.030 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. .005. Amendments. Upon finding that need exists, the Com-masion moy, et any meeting, amend, revoke, or mod.fy any of these
.003. Closed Seasons. Except as provided by Rule .002 above,it rules in compliance with sectior*: 68.001 through 68.021. Texas Parks sha!! be unfawful for any person to take, pessess, transoort, export, and Wildlife Code.
process, sell or offer for sale, or ship any species of fish or wildhfe l within this State listed below; and no person sha!l poness, transport. .006. Effective Date. These rules shaft become effective twenty l export, procen, sell or offer for sale goods made from the fish and days after the fihng of two certified copies in the office of the wildhfe listed below not born and raised in captivity. Secretary of State. MAMMALS REPTILES A%lut whaf t Bolornoptero muscules Speckfed racer Crymobius m. mygaritiferus \ l 4fFinback whate 8s!senopters physalus Har1tt's wster snake Natriar horteri k Rignt whale Eubo!sens spp. (all species) vJbvAtlantic ridtry turtle s; Lepidochetys kumpii l l KSperm whate Phystrer catodon 4r Hawksbill turtle F Errimachelys imbricots B;ack-footed ferret Mustets nignpes . pes Leatherback tut 1lt y Dermothelys toristes Jaguar Panthers oncs ,nrseor American elligator f Alligator rnississipiensis 4Jaguarundi Felis yogousroundicscomitti . Mergey felis wirdii OOcelot Felis cordotis Red wolf Canis rufus AMPHI8IANS Grey watf Csnis lupus monstrabilis I Mexican wotf Conis luous boileyi Cascade Cavern satamneder 10iurycro latitans West Indian manatee Trichechus monstus Tenas khnd satamander Typhlomotge rathbuni 6.ghorn shetp Ovis canadensis Houston toad Bufo houstonensis BIROS FISHES (*3rM,dty "#77/ Mgr t'aj ) identslis {*
' V V Brown petican I Peletonus occ ,K V 4f Southern beld esgit Holisettus I. leucocephalus Paddiefish d
lv (Polyodon soothuis American peregrine falcon falco peregrinus anctum Shovtfnose sturgeon Scaphithynchus piorarynchus d pf 7' Arctic peregrine fetcon falco peregrinus tundrius Amistad gambusia Gambusin omistadensis
- C f Attwater's greater prairie chicken Tympanuchus cupido artwateri San Marcos gambusia Gombusic georpel
{l Whooping crant &c, Grusamericano Big Bend gambusia Combusis gorgei 4L Eskimo curlew hyg)f Numgnigg byteglig Clur Crttk gambusit Ggmbusig heterochir l l ;<,nr Interior least tern i Sterns albifrons othstossos Pecos gembusie Combusio nobilis lvory billed woodnecker Campephilusprincipalis Comanche Sone.gs pupfssh Cyprinodon riegans l Red <ockaded woodpecker Dendrocopos hospolis Leon Springs pupftsh Crprenodon havinus Bachman's werkler Vermivors bachmenii Fountain darter Et'orostoms fonticola Notropis simus VpeujQ Etuntnote shiner m e.nw,o -n M F/Cbdt.b/g r b r.2ers Gup.,% maata sna n y con t,3pyyg p>~
REGULATIONS FOR TAKING, POSSES $1NG, AND TRANSPORTING PP OTECTED N ONG AVE SPEttts 127.70.12JO1 JO8 ,,, t :""l* P t. tM The following rules are promulgated under the authonty of REPTILES Sections 43.021 through 43.030 and Sections 67.001 through 67.005, Texas Parks and Wildhfe Code.
.00 . Definition. Person" mens any individual, ferra, corpora g.
[ff 'T a Go eru erts d,eri
; tian, essociation, or partnership. j
- F Turtle, Atlantic grun Chelones m. mydss l .002. Closed Seasons. Except as provided by Rules.004 005,or
" ' U I'"d '"" ####'"## #'"'#" *""###
l .006, no person may take, ponen, transcott, export, sett or offer for U**N * * ""##'## l sole, or ship any species of fish or wildhfe within this State hsted as .."
- protected nongame; or ponen, trenscort, export, seff, or offer for safe ponds made from . tie fish and wildhfe of this State listed es protected et# Lirard, Tenas horned Phrynosoms cernutum j
* *" F "' Lisard, mountein short horned Phrynosoms doug!sssihernandesi
# "' #"* *** ^#"##### ##"##""# ###'##"##
! .003. Protected Nongame Species. The following species are * 'I' ' '#"## U' #""'""# #"## I hersey designated as Protected Nongame Species: Rattfesnake, rock Crotalus lepodus l Snake, k?stk striced Coniophanes i. imperistis Snakt. northern ent-eyed Leprodeira s. septentrionshs I uAMMkLS Snake.Teses indigo Orymarchon cornis erebennus l Snake Tenaslyre Trimorphodon biscutstus viiksnsoni Snake, Bsg Bend milk Lampropettis trungstum celsencer Snake. central of sins milk Lamprope!tos triangalum gentshs l But, fener yellow Losiurus op santhinus #'W Snake Louisiana milk is'r:propettis inongulum amours Bat, Refinesque's big <ared Plecotus refinesquii Snake, Vesican milk Lampropettis trosngulum annu!sts Bat,scutheastern Wyatis suntarinarius mumicdi Snake, Louisiana psne P tuophis metanoit ucvs ruthveni Bat, scotted Euderms inaculatum Snake Baird's ret Etsche obscrets carrtti F Dolphin, b-id';ed Stent //s fronte/is Snake Trans-Pecos rat Etsche subocu/sers
# 0olphin,rcr.g&toathed Steno bredenensis F Dolphin, spotted Stent //s p/sglodon Couse, Psf a Duro Peromyscus comanche AMPHIBIANS Rat Texes Langaroo Dipodomys eistor WA'haf e, dwerf sperm Kogis simus y W Whale, f aiss killer Pseudorca crossidens \
k Wha'e. goose-beaked Ziphius covirostris Frog. Menscan cliff l g ' Syrtpophusgutti!stus tWhate, Gu1f Stream beaked Mesoplodon europseus Ftog. Mtxican tret Sm"su baudmi Decinus orca Frog. Rio Grande Syrrhophus cyst gnatha des esmpi
+ Whs\e.kilIer
< Wha!e,short-finned pilot Globicephols enscrorhynchs Frog. whitehoped Leprods:tylus tabishs New1,l deck-spotted Motophthalmus m. mend onohs 1' What t. pygmy kitter Feress attenuato Kopio breviceps $stamander, Fern Bank Euryces nectanes prerophils
! WWhate, pygmy sperm l Satamander, Honey Creek Euryces undentifers Satamander, molt Ambystoms talcordeum Salamander, San Marcos Euryces nons BIRDS Safamander,Valdina Farms Euryces tro;'odytes Siren, Rio Grande Siren intermedia texans 1 l
,ggQl y,' ) TuMant Toad, Mexican kurrowing Safo m nna Rhonophrynus dorsalis 1
~ UC Eytt. reddish Dichromanessa r.ruftscens l Fetcon, eptomado fetco femoralis septentrionalis Hawk, black Barropilus s. snthineinus IISHII Hawk, pray Buteo critidus mauimus l
,.Gty Hawk, white-tailed Barro sibicaudatushypospedius l
l Hawk, sont tailed Buteo slbanotstus j 1rCs Ibis, white f aced Piepdit chihi Shndcat, toothieu Troglog' anis esttersoni Elanoides f. forficatus 8tindcat, widemouth Sston rurystomus er C Kite.swelf ow teiled w gr'J Osprey Pendian halisetus carolinensis Chub, Rio Grande Gils pandors ; Owt, ferruginous C/sucidium brasilianum cactorum Darter, Rio Grende Etheostome grsos-ri i WofStork, wood Mycteria smeticans ArDatter, twer Hadropterus shumsedi ,
- OV Tern,teest Sterns sibifrons antittcrum Derter, western sand Ammocrypts cloro 1 1
Carbfer, golderabeeked Dendroice chrysoperis Gembusie. klotched Gambusso senihs l *' *f*')DWh e fs we b /$S O t-hHR.tur5.Gunh gQ 1 l
.. ._..........w w m eA.. e . . . . .
COMMENT ON PROTECTED NATIVE FLORA 0F TEXAS February,1980 While the State of Texas has not adopted an official listing of endangered or threatened plant taxa, nor currently is there state endangered species legislation for flora of concern, there are several references which may be used for guidance in environmental planning. - Approximately 110 Texas plant species were proposed in 1976 for federal listing as endangered or threatened (41 FR 24523-72) but have now been withdrawn (44 FR 70796-7). However withdrawn spe-cies remain under " Notice of7eview" (40 FR 27823). Notice of Review species "should be considered ir. elivironmental planning" (44 3 ,70796). The first Texas plant species listed for federal protection as endangered is Texas wildrice (Zizania texana), 43 FR 17910-17916. Others have now been added as either endangered or Breatened (see attached material). One of the most entensive listings of Texas plant species of con-cern is that which is available from the Texas Organization for Endangered Species (T.O.E.S.) Post Office Box 12773. Austin, Texas 78711. For additional infomation, please contact: Steve Talbot Endangered Species Specialist U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (505) 766-3972 or David H. Riskind Resource Management Section Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (512) 475-4848 i None of YAe_ wi,a p6;f yeeuss l occ v e k Beazek CouAg ( l l l
LISTED SOUTHWESTERN CACTI TETAS I Ancistrocactus tobuschii (Endangered: ))t44(217): 64736-64738) (Tobusch fishook cactus)
- 1. Western Kerr County (Mountain Home to ingram, Texas) and northern Bandera County.
- 2. Low limestone ridges or gravel bars near streams (upper Medina River and tributaries, upper Sabinal River and tributaries, and some tributaries of upper Guadalupe River).
Coryphantha minima (Endangered: ))t44(217): 64738-64740) (Nelly Corv cactus)
- 1. Northern Brewster County, Texas.
- 2. Outcrops of noviculite on hilltops.
Coryphantha'sneedii var. eneedii (Endangered: j]t 44 (217): 64741-64743) (Sneed pincushion cactus)
- 1. Southeastern Dona Ana County, NM. and northwestern El Paso County, Tx.
l 2. Southern Organ Mountains, Bishop's Cap, and Franklin Mountains. Elevation: 1300 - 1650 m. Coryphantha racillosa (Threatened: ))t 44(216) 64247-64249) (Bunched Cory cactus) ,
- 1. Extreme southern and southeastern Brewster County and extreme southwestern Terrell County, extending into adjacent Coahuilla, Mexico.
- 2. Very steep calcareous canyon sides and in adjacent suc=its.
l Echinocereus lloydii (Endangered: ))(44(209): 61916-61917) (Lloyd's nedgehog cactus)
- 1. Northeast Pecos County (east of Fort Stockton).
- 2. Variable--gentle slopes to tops of mesas.
Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii (Endangered: j][44(209): l 61918-61920) (Black lace cactus)
- 1. Extreme southern Jim Wells County, Northern Kleberg County and l possible discontinuous occurrence in Refugio County.
l 2. Transition between coastal plain and rolling interior. Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii (Endangered: j]t44(217): 64738-64740) (Davis' green pitaya)
- 1. Northern Brewster County (near Marathon, Texas).
- 2. Noviculite outcrops on hilltops at about 1200 m.
Neolloydia mariposensis (Threatened: j]t44(216): 64247-64249) (Lloyd's Mariposa cactus) l 1. Extreme southwestern Brewster County and possibly Presidio County. l 2. Limestone gravel on hills en lower slopes of mesas. l l l l l ! l l l
TEXAS PARKS AND W' ILDLIFE DEPARTMENT westomans , cowwissionsas ( R. sTONs j l 90s suRLEsoN w, men, mens famow it. FULTON JOHN M. cREEN
'se-Ch,rman, tesMussh Seawment CLaYTON T. cam RISoN Loufs H.stuvagRg it:E JOHNSON mi axscutave oimacton sen anten.e
~ JOHN H. REacaN sVILotNC AUSTIN. TEXAS 78701 l
June 27,1974 i l i Mr. Paul Storm American Rigging and Construction, Inc. l Box 47007 Brook Hollow Station l Dallas, Texas 75247
Dear Mr. Storm:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 24, 1974. j Tour inquiry as to the possibility of obtaining a permit to dredge l some high sand bars and build a slip on the Brazos leads to many l questions. In reply to yours, permits are being granted at the l present time for dredging and construction of slips on the Brazos. ! However, it cannot be said that all applicants are granted permits. 1 l It is necessary for the applicant to specify the location of the l verk, the area to be dredged, the deposition of the dredged material, the depth of the dredging and the reason for the project on t! 3e , application. Then, our field biologist determines the effect the l project will have on the fish and wildlife habitat. The public and environmental groups arie offered an opportunity to co::nent on the l project at a public hearing. After considering the evidence presented l at the hearing and its effect on the fish and wildlife habitat, the i economy of the area, and navigation, the Hearing Officer makes a reco=nendation for approval or denial of the permit on the merits of each application. tJnder the present rules, it appears that in all probability the project would be approved. However, as we stated when you vere here, the rules may change by the time your project is ready to start. All ) permits granted are for one year only and must be reconsidered at a l public hearing. l l l l
Mr. Paul Storm June ~27, 1974 Page 2 I realize that this does not give you a definite answer, but I am not able to say what changes may happen in the future. Sincerely, C.- .S(P % 31 6 an , Shell and Gravel ogram hader
~
CES:1bb I
- - _ - - __ . . . _}}